Frieser Legal

Category: Uncategorized

  • Frieser Legal Named to Top 100 Sports Law Practices for 2026

    For the third year in a row, Frieser Legal has been named to Hackney Publications’ list of Top 100 Law Firms with Sports Practices. The list is published “with the goal of providing the sports industry with a guidebook to the top 100 law firms with an exemplary sports law practice.” Hackney Publications is the nation’s leading publisher of sports law periodicals. Frieser Legal’s sports law practice is led by Principal Attorney Joshua Frieser.

    With a focus on intercollegiate athletics, Frieser Legal represents clients in athletics governing body regulatory affairs, name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements, sport sponsorship and licensing contracts, and in related intellectual property and corporate matters. The firm provides counsel to athletes on a variety of legal matters, including eligibility and disciplinary proceedings, agency representation agreements, NIL contracts, and intellectual property. Additionally, we provide legal support to sports agencies, serve as outside general counsel to various sports industry ventures, and advise corporate sponsors of athletes and sports properties.

    Related Professionals

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq.

    Principal Attorney, Frieser Legal

    josh@frieserlegal.com | (414) 200-9199

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq. is a sports and business lawyer and Principal Attorney at Frieser Legal. His practice is focused on the representation of athletes, agents, and sports businesses. While working to solve the unique legal needs that they have, Josh represents athletes in regulatory affairs proceedings and NIL licensing agreements, as well as in related intellectual property and business planning matters. In addition to serving as counsel to college and professional athletes, Josh represents sports agents and sports industry ventures as outside counsel.

  • NCAA to Move to Single Transfer Portal for DI Football

    Significant changes are coming to the NCAA’s transfer portal for the Division I FBS and FCS subdivisions. While the new transfer rules are expected to be finalized during the month of October, the NCAA Administrative Committee has eliminated the spring football transfer portal window. The current Division I FBS Oversight Committee proposal sets the single transfer portal window from January 2–16 each year.

    With shortened transfer portal windows, a shift in key recruiting dates, and changes to when collegiate football student-athletes can enter the portal, it is important for athletes and their representatives to review relevant provisions in NIL collective and revenue sharing agreements that may be impacted by the new transfer rules.

    The New Portal Structure

    The Division I Football Championship Subdivision and the Football Bowl Subdivision Oversight Committees have recommended a series of changes to the notification-of-transfer window for football student-athletes. Under this new structure, undergraduate and postgraduate FCS student-athletes would be permitted to enter the transfer portal during a new 15-day window from January 2–16. Additionally, student-athletes whose teams compete in postseason contests on or after January 12 would have a 5-day window, beginning the day after their team’s final game, to submit written notification of their intent to transfer. This streamlined 15-day transfer window would replace the current two-part system, which includes a 20-day period in December and a 10-day window in April.

    The new structure also includes a shift in the recruiting calendar and policies. The first day that prospective football student-athletes may receive written offers of financial aid or settlement- related benefits would move from August 1 to November 15 of their senior year in high school. Furthermore, the existing contact prohibition would be expanded to include the signing of written settlement-related offers, barring other institutions from initiating contact thereafter.

    The Oversight Committees have also recommended making the entire month of December a recruiting dead period. While coaches would still be able to communicate via phone, text, email or written correspondence, no in-person evaluations or contacts on or off campus would be allowed. The current recruiting period from January 5–31 would remain unchanged, allowing for in-person interactions and evaluations. Additionally, the traditional quiet and dead periods surrounding the American Football Coaches Association Convention, scheduled for January 11-14, 2026, would remain intact under the new structure.

    How the New Structure Can Affect Student Athletes

    With NIL continuing to play a factor in college football recruiting, it is more important than ever for student-athletes to pay close attention to key language in their contracts, especially with the new transfer portal structure. Termination clauses in NIL collective and university revenue-sharing agreements can potentially have broad financial implications for athletes that wish to transfer. Prior to providing their university with a notification of transfer, athletes should review the language in their agreements. Particularly, college athletes should review the contract term length and expiration date, termination clauses, effects of termination, and implications of the NCAA legislative changes (some agreements call for renegotiation or termination options in the event of NCAA bylaw amendments, court rulings, or passed legislation).

    Contract Term

    Under the new transfer portal structure, the term length of a student-athlete’s agreement can have a significant impact on their flexibility. While some NIL collective and revenue sharing agreements expire at the end of the college football season (usually, December 31), others extend into the spring semester, with backloaded payments. In addition to potentially foregoing remaining payments, athletes may be limited by exclusivity provisions, which limit their ability to sign a new NIL collective or revenue sharing agreement prior to the expiration of their current deal. Student-athletes should review key dates in any agreements prior to deciding to enter the transfer portal.

    Termination Clauses and Effects of Termination

    Before entering into the transfer portal, student-athletes should first check whether doing so would impact or terminate their existing agreements. In many agreements, simply providing written notice of transfer will automatically terminate the agreement, with the student-athlete foregoing all remaining payments and, in some cases, owing the university or collective some sort of buyout or repayment. Since these terms vary in different agreements and are not standardized, it is crucial for student-athletes to understand the termination provisions in their NIL collective and revenue sharing agreements before entering the portal.

    Language Concerning Legislative Changes

    Given the dynamic nature of the college sports regulatory landscape, it is common for NIL collective and revenue sharing agreements to contemplate significant changes, such as NCAA bylaw changes, state or federal legislative changes, and/or court decisions that affect the parties. Frequently, these clauses can give one or both parties the opportunity to get out of their obligations under the agreement. Likewise, there may be an automatic renegotiation period triggered.

    As the transfer portal and NIL landscape continue to evolve, student-athletes should be proactive in understanding their current agreements, prior to the forthcoming transfer window. From contract length and termination clauses, every detail matters. These agreements can directly impact the ability to enter the portal, receive future payments and keep payments already made, or sign new deals after entering the portal.

  • 7th Circuit Reverses District Court Injunction in Fourqurean NCAA Eligibility Case

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled in favor of the NCAA in Nyzier Fourqurean’s eligibility lawsuit. The NCAA’s appeal came after a preliminary injunction was granted to Fourqurean by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Fourqurean, a member of the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s football team, brought antitrust claims in challenge of the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule, which limits college athletes to four seasons of eligibility in five years. Fourqurean has competed for two seasons at UW–Madison, after competing for two seasons at the Division II level.

    The Seventh Circuit’s Decision

    The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, holding that Fourqurean failed to define a relevant antitrust market which was harmed by the Five-Year Rule. While the court recognized how the rule excludes Fourqurean himself from competing in the marketplace, he failed to show how the rule diminishes compensation in the marketplace overall, holding that “[u]nder ordinary principles of supply and demand, a restraint that limits the supply of workers in a labor market would increase, not decrease, worker compensation.” 

    Anticompetitive Effects

    In analyzing the anticompetitive effects of the Five-Year Rule, the Court of Appeals reasoned that even if Division I FBS football was the relevant market (as Fourqurean alleged), the NCAA’s market dominance does not inherently diminish competition for the services of college football players. As Fourqurean—and the other college football players who are likewise limited to four years of eligibility—is not a competitor of the NCAA or its member institutions, he must prove an antitrust injury to the marketplace, not just to himself.

    Otherwise, the appellate court held that the Five-Year Rule does not reduce competition between NCAA institutions for football players. Instead, the rule requires schools to compete over a smaller pool of eligible players. Although this harms Fourqurean, his pleadings do not show that this harms the whole market—an essential element of any antitrust claim.

    Next Steps in this Case

    The case will proceed in district court, without the preliminary injunction in place. The Court of Appeals noted that Fourqurean’s claims could be successful upon establishing a more complete record. Likewise, the appellate court recognized the challenges related to the calendar; the college football season begins next month. It encouraged the district court and the parties to expedite the litigation, although that may be difficult given the nature of the antitrust claims.

    The Current Landscape of Five-Year Rule Challenges

    To date, federal district courts have come to differing conclusions regarding the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule. Among similar cases, a handful of preliminary injunctions have been granted, while others have been denied. Notably, the Fourqurean case marks the first federal appellate court decision in the line of cases. Diego Pavia’s suit (which is notable as it was the first preliminary injunction granted) is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It is possible that if other federal appellate courts come to different conclusions on the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule, the U.S. Supreme Court could look to resolve the split between the circuits.

  • WIAA Votes to Permit High School Athletes to Earn NIL Compensation

    The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) membership has voted on an amendment to the Association’s bylaws that will allow high school athletes in Wisconsin to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The bylaw amendment aligns Wisconsin with a growing number of states that have embraced NIL rights at the high school level.

    A Second Chance on NIL for the WIAA

    This is not the first time the WIAA has considered relaxing its NIL restrictions. A similar amendment was voted on at the end of the 2023-24 academic year, but failed to pass, largely due to concerns over recruiting imbalances, administrative confusion, and uncertainty over enforcement. However, momentum has shifted since then. Over 40 state high school athletic associations have implemented NIL rules permitting high school athletes to participate in the growing market, creating pressure for Wisconsin to modernize its stance or risk falling behind. Likewise, there was speculation that if the WIAA did not permit high school athletes to engage in NIL activity, the state legislature may have gotten involved.

    The New Bylaw

    The amendment modifies WIAA Bylaw Article II, Section 1. It allows Wisconsin high school student-athletes to earn compensation for their NIL outside of school-related team activities. This means athletes can enter into endorsement deals, social media promotions, and other income-generating opportunities independently of their school affiliations. To maintain the integrity of high school sports and prevent potential abuses, the amendment includes several important restrictions. Athletes are allowed to profit through social media promotions, endorsement deals, personal appearances, autograph signings, and more, as long as these are not connected to their school team, uniform, or WIAA branding. However, there are a handful of limitations:

    • NIL deals cannot involve school or team logos, facilities, uniforms, or names;
    • Athletes may not endorse products that conflict with school or WIAA rules, such as tobacco, alcohol, firearms, or gambling;
    • Schools and coaches are not allowed to facilitate or negotiate NIL agreements on behalf of athletes;
    • NIL activity must be student-initiated and independent of any recruitment or pay-for-play implications; and
    • Athletes are not permitted to hire an agent to source or negotiate NIL deals (the WIAA has indicated that athletes are permitted to hire an attorney to review contracts).

    These restrictions aim to preserve the amateur integrity of high school sports while still giving athletes autonomy over their personal brands.

    What This Means for Athletes and Schools

    This amendment opens the door for student-athletes to benefit financially from their popularity and performance, especially those with large social media followings or standout talent. Athletes would be able to monetize their NIL, much like college athletes have since the NCAA relaxed restrictions in 2021.

    For schools, this change introduces new responsibilities. While they may not be directly involved in NIL deals, they should educate athletes, monitor for compliance, and adjust existing policies to avoid violations of eligibility rules. The WIAA has partnered with Influential Athlete, a Milwaukee-based company, to educate school leaders and athletic directors on navigating the NIL landscape.

    This bylaw change represents a major shift in Wisconsin high school athletics. With high school athletes now permitted to engage in commercial NIL activity, athletes and their parents should be cognizant of the legal ramifications of entering into formal contracts. While not an exhaustive list, engaging in NIL activity typically has broad contract, tax, and intellectual property ramifications. Athletes should consider working with legal counsel to appropriately navigate NIL contracts and the related legal implications of this dynamic space.

  • As the House Settlement is Finalized, College Athletes must Quickly Prepare for the Revenue Sharing Era

    In a long-awaited decision, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has approved the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA (In re College Athlete NIL Litigation). The suit, originally filed in 2020, challenged the NCAA’s prohibition on college athletes’ ability to earn compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) and revenue derived from the broadcasts of athletic contests. In May 2024, the NCAA’s membership voted to settle the suit with $2.57 billion to be paid in damages to current and former student-athletes and a significant change to the collegiate model. With the proposed settlement now finalized, college athletics will quickly transition from the “NIL era” to the “revenue sharing era.”

    Future Revenue Sharing

    Beginning on July 1, 2025, Division I institutions will be permitted to share revenue derived from athletics directly with student-athletes for the first time. An aggregate of $1.6 billion dollars per year in new compensation and benefits will flow from universities to Division I athletes. These payments will largely come in the form of revenue sharing agreements. Institutions will have a cap on the amount of revenue they are permitted to share with athletes. The cap will be set at 22% of the average revenue of the NCAA’s Power Five conference members—expected to be $20.5 million per institution in the 2025–26 academic year and increasing each year thereafter.

    Preliminary Revenue Sharing Contracts

    Beginning in December 2024, some Division I institutions began providing student-athletes with revenue sharing contracts (or memorandums of understanding for future revenue sharing contracts). Largely, these MOUs have included language that transferred a significant portion of the athletes’ NIL licensing rights to the university, in exchange for the promised revenue sharing compensation.

    Third-Party NIL Deals

    Direct revenue sharing compensation will be independent of any third-party NIL arrangements or deals with an NIL collective. Agreements with third parties which exceed $600 will be subject to approval by a newly established clearinghouse, NIL Go. Beginning on June 7, 2025, all such third-party NIL deals must be reported to the clearinghouse. Deals will then be reviewed to ensure that NIL deals are for a valid business purpose and do not exceed a “reasonable” range of compensation. Many have speculated that the primary function of the clearinghouse will be to limit the funds disbursed by NIL collectives—booster funded entities that typically exist solely to fund NIL efforts at a particular institution. Athletes will have an opportunity to appeal any rejected deals to a neutral arbitrator.

    Implications for College Athletes and their Agents

    Collegiate student-athletes should immediately review any NIL agreements they have entered into that are currently in effect (i.e., they are still being paid, or the contract has not expired). While a number of NIL collectives rushed to disburse funds prior to June 30, 2025, others have taken a different approach. Many athletes still have an NIL collective contract that extends well into the new revenue sharing era. It is important to understand how that contract may be affected by the House settlement or future revenue sharing contracts and payments. Many NIL collective agreements that extend beyond June 30, 2025, explicitly permit the collective to reduce compensation on a dollar-for-dollar basis with revenue sharing payments or assign the agreement to the university in its entirety.

    Moreover, athletes and their agents should review any obligations, rights, and responsibilities stemming from initial MOUs that may have been entered into prior to the House settlement being finalized. Likewise, athletes may be receiving longer-form revenue sharing agreements now that the final settlement has been approved.

    What to Look for in Revenue Sharing Contracts

    While the forthcoming revenue sharing era is viewed as a net positive for athletes nationwide, it does not come without its risks. Athletes should take particular care to understand the specific terms associated with their new revenue sharing agreements. Early revenue sharing agreements (and the preceding MOUs) have been extremely one sided in favor of institutions. Some examples of university-friendly terms have included:

    • Unilateral amendment of an athlete’s compensation partway through a deal;
    • “Clawbacks” of compensation paid if an athlete transfers or is kicked off a team;
    • Overly broad termination language; and
    • Waiver of an athlete’s future rights to bring a lawsuit against the institution.

    Although these examples are common red flags that athletes should look for, there are dozens of other provisions that should be closely reviewed. Importantly for athletes and their representatives, these revenue sharing agreements are starkly different than the professional sports player contracts that are typically standardized and bargained for by a union (e.g., the NFLPA). There is no group that has represented the players in drafting the terms of these revenue sharing contracts. Otherwise, universities have drafted them entirely on their own accord and largely to their benefit. This underscores the even greater need for athletes and agents to consider working with experienced counsel before agreeing to the terms of an NIL revenue sharing agreement.

  • Pistons Star Malik Beasley Sued by Former Agent

    Hazan Sports Management Group (HSM), led by NBPA-certified agent Daniel Hazan, has filed a breach of contract suit against its former client Malik Beasley in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beasley, the Detroit Pistons star and finalist for the NBA’s Sixth Man of the Year award, signed an NBPA Standard Player Agent Contract (“SPAC”) with HSM in 2023 to serve as his on-court player agent. The parties also signed an exclusive marketing representation agreement, with HSM providing Beasley with a cash marketing advance of $650,000 against his future endorsement income.

    Facts

    According to the Complaint, Beasley fired HSM as his on-court player agent in February 2025 and simultaneously breached the provisions of the parties’ marketing representation contract. Shortly thereafter, Beasley hired Brian Jungreis and his firm, Seros Partners, for on-court representation and as a marketing agency. Seros Partners’ chief executive is Christian Dawkins, an NIL agent who was famously sentenced to eighteen months in prison for his role at the center of the 2017 corruption in college basketball scandal. HSM has alleged that Beasley’s breach of the marketing services agreement between the parties triggered a liquidated damages clause in the contract, which requires Beasley to pay HSM a sum of $1,000,000, plus attorneys fees.

    Difference between a SPAC and Marketing Representation Agreement

    The practice of signing two agreements—one for “player agent” services and one for marketing services—is common for sports agencies who represent professional athletes. A SPAC is a standard form agreement required by the National Basketball Players Association for agreements between NBA players and NBPA-certified agents for player agent services. Player agent services primarily include representation during contract negotiations with teams in the league. Other professional sports players unions similarly require that a standard agreement be used (e.g., the NFLPA’s Standard Representation Agreement) for such services.

    Importantly to this case, the NBPA’s SPAC requires that disputes between players and NBPA-certified agents regarding the SPAC be resolved through the union’s arbitration process. While it is possible (if not probable) that HSM has initiated arbitration proceedings against Beasley through the NBPA, those claims will likely not become public.

    In addition to representing athletes in negotiations with teams, many sports agencies represent players in marketing endeavors, sourcing and negotiating sponsorship and endorsement deals on their behalf. Notably, the NBPA does not regulate the contractual relationship between its members and the agents it has certified for marketing agreements between them. In fact, an individual does not even need to be certified by the NBPA to represent NBA players for marketing purposes. Accordingly, the marketing representation agreement between HSM and Beasley is not subject to the NBPA’s arbitration requirements.

    Potential Outcomes

    Malik Beasley may try to advance several arguments in a motion to dismiss HSM’s claims. The strongest plausible argument is that the $650,000 cash advance against future marketing income was an inducement to sign a SPAC (and only disguised as a marketing advance), which is impermissible under the NBPA’s agent regulations. Such an argument would likely be paired with a motion to compel arbitration, as the NBPA’s arbitration process would be appropriate for disputes related to the union’s agent regulations and the SPAC. Additionally, it is possible that Beasley raises more traditional defenses to breach of contract claims.

    Takeaways

    Regardless of the outcome of HSM’s case against its former client, athletes and agents alike should be cognizant of the legal ramifications related to marketing representation agreements, addenda to player agent contracts (such as SPACs, SRAs and similar union-mandated representation agreements), and agreements for additional services (such as financial services or pre-draft training).

Privacy Policy Privacy Policy