First Sports Law Treatise?

It is difficult to say what was the first law-related book devoted to sports law, but if the title is any indication, it could be W. M. Thompson and J. D. A. Johnson, The Law of Sports (1896), which was published by W. B. Hearnden of New Inn Chambers, London.  Its authors appear to have been British, or possibly Irish, barristers.  The Law Times for 1894 lists them as arguing the case of Keep v. The Vestry of St. Mary, Newington before Queen’s Bench, and their names appear as counsel in a number of criminal cases argued in Old Bailey (London’s central criminal court) in the 1890’s and the early 1900’s.

The Law of Sports is extremely difficult to locate; in fact, it appears that there is no known copy in the United States. This work was reviewed in the London Journal in 1896, and the following description of the work can be found on page 152 of Volume 13 of Fores’s Sporting Notes and Sketches,(London 1896) under the heading of “Notes on Novelties”:

The Law of Sports by W. M. Thompson and J. D. A. Johnson, LL.D., is a useful pamphlet, the copious information therein contained being summarised into the smallest possible space. The legal points connected with the game laws, fishing, hunting, racing, and gambling, being (so to speak) “in a nutshell.” Hearnden, New Inn Chambers, is the publisher.

Fores’s Sporting Notes and Sketches, which can be found in the New York Public Library, was a magazine containing articles “descriptive of British, Indian, Colonial, and Foreign Sport.”  Because Fores’s description makes no mention of team sports like cricket, rugby, or association football or of individual competitor sports like golf and tennis, it is conceivable that the Thompson and Johnson work is devoted only to what are often called “field sports.” 

If that is so, there are many older works on those topics, including George Putnam Smith, The Law of Field-Sports, which was published in 1886 by the New York publisher O. Judd Company, and Henry John Rous’ The Laws and Practices of Horse Racing (London 1866), which earned its author the appellation “the Blackstone of Horse Racing.”  Works on the law of hunting date back at least to the 18th century.  Thomson Gale, The Game Laws was published in its 7th edition in 1807.

Continue ReadingFirst Sports Law Treatise?

Barry Bonds’ Contribution to the Growth of American Law

Baseball player Barry Bonds’ problems with perjury and illegal performance enhancing drugs have been well documented, but what is not nearly so well know is his contribution to the law regarding prenuptial agreements, particularly in California.

In 1988, Barry Bonds married Susann “Sun” Margreth Blanco, a native of Sweden, in Las Vegas.  The two had met the previous summer in Montreal while Bonds was playing for the Pittsburgh Pirates and Sun was working as a bartender.  The day before they were married, each signed a prenuptial agreement by which each waived any interest in the earnings of the other during marriage.  The agreement was prepared by Bonds’ lawyers, and Sun was not represented by counsel.  She was also unemployed at the time the agreement was signed.

bonds1In 1994, after six years of marriage and two children, Bonds petitioned for a legal separation, and his wife subsequently requested a dissolution of the marriage on grounds of physical abuse and infidelity (presumably involving Bonds infamous girlfriend, Kimberly Bell).  She also decided to contest the validity of the prenuptial agreement she had signed six years earlier.

During the trial concerning the validity of the agreement, Bonds testified that he told his wife-to-be that he would not marry her unless she agreed to waive any right to his income during their marriage.

He also insisted that his wife understood perfectly well what he was proposing. In contrast, Sun testified that in 1987 and 1988, her English was poor and that she often did not understand what Bonds was talking about.  She also claimed that she did not learn about the agreement until shortly before she was asked to sign it.

The trial judge found Bonds’ testimony more credible and ruled that the agreement was valid.  On appeal, the intermediate appellate court ruled by a split decision that Sun’s lack of legal assistance and the imminence of the wedding made her consent highly questionable, and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that it needed to give much greater weight to such factors.  The majority made it clear that Bonds had to overcome a strong presumption of invalidity due to the circumstances of this case.  In re Marriage of Bonds, 71 Cal. App. 4th 290, reh. den., 72 Cal. App. 4th 94d (1999).

bonds2Bonds appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of California, which on July 21, 1999, agreed to hear the case.  The following year, in the case styled, In re Marriage of Bonds, 5 P.3d 815 (Cal. 2000), the state’s highest court ruled unanimously that the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish a voluntary waiver on the part of Blanco (or Sun Bonds, as she preferred to be called). Contrary to the holding of the appellate court, the Supreme Court found that the lack of independent counsel was not dispositive, given the lack of evidence of coercion and no real proof of a lack of understanding on the part of the plaintiff.  Consequently, it reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

The decision was handed down on August 21, 2000, a day on which Bonds’ Giants defeated the Florida Marlins 6-0 in San Francisco.  Bonds was in the line-up that day and went one-for-three with a walk and a run scored.  Sun petitioned for a rehearing, but on October 18, after the division champion Giants were eliminated in the National League playoffs by the New York Mets, the State Supreme Court denied this request.  By the date of the final decision, Bonds had arranged to have his marriage to Sun annulled by the Catholic Church and had remarried.  And, at least according to the book Game of Shadows, he had also just finished the second season in which he used anabolic steroids.

From a national perspective, the California Supreme Court’s Bonds decision was just one of several decisions handed down at the end of the twentieth century that appeared to represent a growing acceptance of the legitimacy of prenuptial agreements, which had historically been looked upon with disfavor.  However, not everyone viewed this as a positive development.

bonds-barry-ap-060520Bonds’ “pre-nup” case was followed with great interest in California, and public sentiment was clearly on the side of his ex-wife.  (Bonds’ growing reputation for moodiness and surliness in his dealing with the baseball public hardly helped here.)  In the next session of the California legislature, State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica and in another life, the actress who played the zany Zelda Gilroy on the 1960’s sitcom, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis) introduced a bill that provided that for prenuptial agreements to be valid, both parties to the agreement had to be represented by their own lawyers.

Kuehl’s act also required that parties to such an agreement be given at least seven days to consider the proposal and that the agreement be explained to the partner in his or her native language (which in Sun’s case would have been Swedish).  Kuehl made no effort to deny that her bill was inspired by the outcome of the Bonds case, and in fact cited it repeatedly to garner support for the proposed act.  The bill easily passed both houses of the California legislature and was signed into law on September 12, 2001, by Gov. Gray Davis.  In its story reporting the passage of the bill the following day, the Los Angeles Times described it “as legislation sparked by the bitter 1994 divorce of baseball slugger Barry Bonds and the growing popularity of such accords.”  The statute is currently codified at Cal. Fam. Code §1615 (2009).

bonds 3Although the legislative change came too late to help Sun Bonds, the ex-wife did receive some vindication on October 9, 2001, when a California appellate court in San Francisco ruled that the pre-nuptial agreement notwithstanding, Sun was still entitled to half the value of the two homes and an undeveloped lot that Bonds had purchased during their marriage. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, her interest in the three parcels was at least $1.5 million. After this decision, Bonds reportedly settled with his ex-wife for an amount in excess of the Chronicle’s estimate in exchange for her promise to stop suing him.

The October 9, 2001 ruling came only two days after the PED-fueled slugger blasted his seventy-third home run of the 2001 season, which remains, albeit shrouded in scandal, the all-time record.  But thanks to Barry Bonds, in California it is now far more difficult than it used to be to coerce a vulnerable spouse-to-be into signing a prenuptial agreement.  Also, since 2001, a growing number of jurisdictions have adopted a similar statute, or, as it might be called, “the Barry Bonds rule.”

Continue ReadingBarry Bonds’ Contribution to the Growth of American Law

What Is Going On Over at the Internet?

computerOn Thursday, I drafted a blog post inspired by the recent death of 89-year-old former major league baseball player Larry Jansen. Jansen was an outstanding pitcher in National League in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, and was also the primary plaintiff in an early right of publicity case.  I have found that very few baseball fans or right of publicity scholars know about Jansen’s case, so I thought it would be appropriate, in light of his recent death, to post a short account of the case.

I realized that the public interest in this topic might be quite limited, so when I e-mailed it to the Blog editors on Thursday night, I suggested that they might just want to file this posting directly in the Law & Sports archive.

When I checked this morning, my submission had not yet been posted anywhere on the Faculty Blog.  I did not check again until around 6:30 p.m. CDT.  At that point, I noticed that the post had in fact been placed in the “recent posts” section of the blog.

Out of curiosity, I typed the article title into the Google search box to see if any IP or baseball history sites had set up links to the post.  What I found was truly bizarre.  I found my post, which is devoted to a 1953 intellectual property case that no one knows about, reproduced in whole or in part on several different blogs and webpages.

Only one seemed to be remotely related to the topic.  That was a website entitled Baseball Now where it was placed under the heading “Baseball News” and positioned next to a story about the death of Larry Jansen, the subject of my post.  I had never heard of Baseball Now, and I am not sure that a report of a 1953 court decision counts as “news,” but at least it makes sense that a baseball themed webpage desperate for material would be searching the Internet for stories it could pirate.  To its credit, the Baseball Now page copied only the first five lines of the article.  To read the entire article you had to click through two pages of the website before finally arriving at the MU Faculty Blog where, of course, both the name of the author and the source of the writing are identified.

The other hits turned out to be nothing short of bizarre.

One is Widgetbox, which copied the first part of the post under the heading of politics where it sits next to a post entitled “Same sex couples allowed divorce” which is about a legal case in Texas.  Both my post and the Texas one are underneath a link “Legal advice online.” I also noticed that the page listed a number of other recent posts from the MU Faculty Blog.

If the widget-seeker clicks on the “Legal advice online” link, he or she is taken to a different site called Trafficlegaladvice.com which promises “free legal advice for consumers.”  There, my post is reproduced in its entirety, but without any indication that I am the author or that it is taken from the MU Faculty Blog.  Well, at least the article should come in very handy for any consumer contemplating travelling back in time to 1953 and filing a lawsuit against a company placing photos of major league baseball players in popcorn boxes.

My Google search also found the title of my post on a site called Blogsworld Vox.  The post itself is not there, but attached to the title is a link to an alleged real estate site called The Home For Sale.com.  That site contains only the first paragraph of my article but it is accompanied by a link that would take the curious home purchaser to the MU Law School faculty blog.  I suppose that now that Larry Jansen is dead, his home will be soon coming on to the market.

Incredibly, my post also shows up on a website called Beantown Online:  All about Boston.  There is no reference to Boston whatsoever in my post.  Only the first paragraph is reproduced, and it shows up sandwiched between posts entitled “Plant Decors At Home: Your Own Heaven On Earth”  and “Audit: Mass. home health system leaves vulnerable at risk.”  The latter article does appear to be about Boston, more or less, and it also appears to have been lifted from the Boston Globe’s webpage.

In my story, I mention in passing that in 1946, Larry Jansen won 30 games as a pitcher for the minor league San Francisco Seals of the Pacific Coast League.  Apparently that was enough to get it picked up by http://sanfranciscotaxi.info which includes only part of the first paragraph of the post and omits the part about the San Francisco Seals entirely.  It does, however, provide the viewer with an 800 number which presumably can be used to call a taxi in San Francisco.

I am, however, most proud of the fact that my post was picked up by Linda Nelson Blogsworld.  Linda’s blog appears to pick up about fifty posts every hour from other blogs.  My post on Larry Jansen is limited to the first 10 lines and appears between “REOs in Kuna Idaho Keeping Market Afloat” and “8 Fatal Mistakes Made By Google Adwords Advertisers.”

Linda NelsonThe best part of Linda’s blog is her photo.

And all of this just in the first few hours after the post was entered on the Marquette Faculty Blog.  I can only imagine how widely it will be distributed 24 hours from now.

Seriously, can anyone explain to me what is going on here?  It is as though robots are being sent out across the Internet to randomly capture posts from other blogs and then bring them back to be posted on completely pointless websites–my apologies to www.baseballnow.com–that should fool no one with an IQ over 40.

Continue ReadingWhat Is Going On Over at the Internet?