WHAT IF BARRY BONDS PLAYED PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL?

By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible

Barry Bonds has faced just about everything over the last few years. Criticism. Controversy. Joy. Humiliation. Congress. The end result? An indictment by a federal grand jury. I was looking over a timeline of Barry's legal troubles over the years and I began to ponder what his punishment would be if he played in the National Football League.

October 23, 2003
Barry Bonds testifies before a Grand Jury about his alleged knowledge and dealings with BALCO, a laboratory accused of distributing performance enhancing drugs to professional baseball players – especially Bonds. He states he received “cream” and “clear” substances from BALCO but was told they were not steroids.

MLB’s Reaction: nothing

Roger Goodell’s Action: Goodell would have immediately had Bonds come into his Manhattan office for a meeting. He would have most certainly reiterated the steroid policy in the NFL and warned Bonds that a suspension is imminent if further investigation revealed steroid use.

February 17, 2004
Greg Anderson, Bonds’ longtime friend and personal trainer, is heavily investigated in the BALCO scandal and tells federal agents he gave steroids to several baseball players.

March 2, 2004
A newspaper article reports that Bonds, along with Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Marvin Benard, Benito Santiago, Randy Velarde and Bill Romonowski received steroids from BALCO.

MLB’s Reaction: Commissioner Bud Selig finally meets with Bonds in private before a game in April of 2004. No suspension.

Roger Goodell’s Reaction: At this point, evidence is piling up fast against Bonds. Goodell would have required a drug test once a week during the season and in the off-season. He might also secretly put pressure on Bonds’ team’s owner to sever ties with Bonds until any investigation on him comes to an end.

April 8, 2005
Bonds is reported to be continuing to work out with Greg Anderson – who is awaiting trial on charges of distributing performance enhancing drugs.

MLB’s Reaction: MLB implements new steroid policy: 50 game suspension for first time offenders; 100-game ban for second time offenders; and a lifetime ban for a third violation. Nothing is done to Bonds.

Roger Goodell’s Reaction: Goodell’s disgust with Bonds continuing to associate himself with poor character individuals leads him to require that Bonds submit to a drug test before every single game.

2006 MLB Season
Bonds fails a drug test (MLB’s amphetamine policy). Bonds blames it on a teammate.

MLB’s Reaction: Under MLB’s policy, players are not identified for a first positive test for amphetamines.

Roger Goodell’s Reaction: Immediate suspension for at least four games. (In the NFL, that is equivalent to 1/4 of your regular season games).

November 15, 2007
Bonds is indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts of perjury and one count obstruction of justice.

MLB’s Reaction: Nothing formal as of yet.

Roger Goodell’s Reaction: Indefinite suspension with a possible ban from the game.

THE "PLUS-ONE" PHENOMENON - WHEN WILL COLLEGE FOOTBALL IMPLEMENT A PLUS-ONE SCENARIO?

By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible

Every year around this time, college football enthusiasts unite to discuss why the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is arguably the most flawed system since Major League Baseball's Drug Testing Policy. The BCS formula was instituted in 1998 and was supposed to dispose of all controversy surrounding an undisputed national champion in college football. Unfortunately, it has generated a swell of criticism and each year numerous teams voice their disgust over the BCS ranking system.

The BCS uses three components in figuring a team's ranking: (1) the USA Today Coaches Poll; (2) the Harris Interactive College Football Poll; and (3) an average of six computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsly, Colley Matrix, Kenneth Massey, Jeff Sagarin and Peter Wolfe) - a list virtually unknown to the average college football fan.

The problem that continues to arise at the end of each season is that there are usually more than two teams that feel they deserve a shot at the National Championship. College football has been unable to truly solve this problem and the debate over whether or not a playoff system should be implemented pops up every year.

Regardless of whether or not a playoff scenario is the answer, there is a misconception that colleges and universities have too much money to lose if a playoff system replaces the current 100 year old bowl system. This is completely inaccurate.

College football would only increase revenue with a potential playoff system. In fact, following the 2004 regular season, undefeated Auburn was left out of the National Championship and the BCS was heavily criticized. Bodog.com, a sports gambling website, offered 50 million dollars to sponsor a "real" National Championship game. This offer was rejected but left many corporate giants seeing dollar signs.

First of all, a playoff system comparable to college basketball will never happen. The so-called sixteen-team-playoff scenario is unrealistic and regular season games would lose importance. College football has the most exciting regular season in sports because every game matters. A sixteen-team-playoff would diminish the regular season because teams will still have a shot at the national title with sub par seasons.

The "Plus-One" scenario is much more likely to occur. Under this system, two of the four major bowl games (Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta) would operate as semi-final games where the two winners would move on to face each other in a National Championship. But before it does, there are few legal barriers preventing this type of playoff from happening.

The BCS is not an individual entity. It's a combination of the four major bowls plus the recently added fifth bowl game, also known as the National Championship, which is played at the same site as one of four major bowl games (It rotates every year). There are several contracts in play at the current moment that essentially dictate who plays in the major bowl games. Most notably, the Rose Bowl's 300 million dollar contract with ABC, serves as the biggest hurdle in moving towards a "Plus-One" scenario.

The Rose Bowl's contract with ABC runs through 2014 and allows the Rose Bowl to retain their longstanding Big Ten Pac Ten matchup. Significantly, the Rose Bowl will host the National Championship in 2010. Therefore, the Rose Bowl committee has no interest in having a potential playoff - or "Plus-One" scenario - until after the 2010 National Championship. Additionally, the Rose Bowl would have to ease off it's preference to continuously invite only Big Ten and Pac Ten teams.

The BCS also has an exclusive four-year deal with Fox Sports. Under this contract, Fox retains all broadcasting rights to the four major bowl games through 2010 and the National Championship game through 2009.

As a result of these contracts, the BCS is in no position to change their current format. They would have to break their contracts with ABC and FOX or, at the least, restructure them in a way so that the National Championship game would be played by the two teams who were victorious in the previous semi-final game the week before.

What sounds like an extremely complicated mess, a "Plus-One" scenario would leave less controversy over who the number one team is. With over 100 Division 1-A teams in college football, a perfect system is virtually impossible. However, a team outside of the top four will have little or no argument for a chance at the title.

We've seen just about everything this season in college football and the battle to play in this year's National Championship is far from over. Following Ohio State's collapse last week, there are several teams that have a real shot at glory. Unfortunately, only two teams - as opposed to four in a "Plus-One" scenario - will get that shot.

In the end, breaking a legal binding contract of this nature would cost millions. A "Plus-One" scenario, while likely to happen at some point, cannot occur before 2010 - and may not happen until a few years after that. Until then, college football teams are at the hands of formula that may or may not be fair, but certainly not perfect.

BELICHICK'S 500K FINE: A TAX WRITE OFF?

By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible

By now, NFL fans are well aware of Spygate. Bill Belichick's arrogance finally caught up with him and his inability to follow the rules were exploited in week one of this season. I don't want to dwell on on the specifics of the incident as the media world has already beaten this topic to death.

What I do want to dwell on is the rumor lurking that Belichick might try to "write off" the 500K fine levied by the NFL as a business expense. Would Belichick actually try to pull this off? More importantly, can he legally deduct this fine as a business expense on his tax return?

According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), "to be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your industry. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business." Leave it to the IRS to be as vague as possible. You could justify anything as an ordinary and necessary expense under these rules.

It's not inconceivable that one could make the argument that fines are "common and accepted" and "helpful and appropriate" in the NLF. Players and coaches are practically fined on a weekly basis. A fine is the most common form of punishment in the league. They are certainly common and undoubtedly appropriate. If the IRS were to agree with this, Belichick could successfully classify his fine as a business expense.

Tax Attorney Michael Mandale, Managing Partner of the The Mandale Law Firm, a boutique tax controversy resolution firm based out of Philadelphia, feels that Belichick will have no problem writing off the fine. "In my opinion, Belichick's [possible] deduction of the fine is arguably proper in that both his actions and the fine imposed against him are an ordinary and necessary part of the business in the NFL," said Attorney Mandale.

He went on to rationalize his theory by saying; "The organization pays it's coaches with the expectation that they will strive to be the best they can be. Spying on opponents is a direct way for individual coaches to excel and gain the edge that all competitors in the league are aiming for. Not surprisingly, the imposition of fines in all professional sports is an almost everyday occurrence; this particular fine is no exception to the trend."


When I asked if the fine would pass muster under the "necessary" prong required by the IRS, Attorney Mandale said; "In the professional sports industry, spying on opponents is a sometimes necessary business tactic which enhances both the coach's and team's ability to perform. The imposition of fines is simply a method through which the NFL aims to discourage unsportsmanlike conduct by team leaders."

This would make for quite an interesting move by Belichick. The fine was levied on him to punish him for his actions. The rationale of all fines are based on the theory of retribution. But if Belichick is able to write off this fine, he loses nothing financially. Zero monetary loss.

But would the public even find out if Belichick wrote the fine off?

"Every one's tax returns, celebrity or not, are treated by the IRS as confidential," said Attorney Mandale. "If his deduction were to be ruled as unqualified after his initial filing and he chose to seek redress in the courts, eventually, it would become a public record," he said in response to whether the public would ever find out.

Attorney Mandale feels it is likely that the IRS will allow the write off. "The NFL hands out fines on a regular basis. There is no doubt the IRS will see a tax write off of this kind as an ordinary and necessary expense within the NFL," said Attorney Mandale.

Belichick and the Patriots will also lose a draft pick in next year's draft. A draft pick and a hefty fine - Was it enough? Not if Belichick is able to itemize the fine as a business expense on his tax return.

Will we ever find out the truth? Probably not.

But if Belichick's arrogance is any indication, the IRS may be the deciders of his punishment, or lack thereof.



Attorney Michael Mandale can be contacted at:

The Mandale Law Firm, P.C.
1310 Industrial Blvd., Ste. 200
Southampton, PA 18966
http://www.mandalelaw.com/
1-888-LIEN-FIX
(215)-355-1687