About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2004 Annual Survey: Recent Developments in Sports Law 531 (2004)

handle is hein.blasports/ansrvds0015 and id is 1 raw text is: 2004 ANNUAL SURVEY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SPORTS LAW INTRODUCTION This article is a survey of sports law cases during the period of January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. This article does not encompass every case from the past year but is an attempt to highlight those cases that have further defined the unique area of sports law practice. To provide clarity, this article is divided into topics based on a particular focus. With tens of cases having been decided in the past year, this survey demonstrates that the field of sports law is still thriving and continues to make a lasting impact on the legal system. AGENTS Sports agents play a considerable role in the field of sports law through their involvement in the negotiation of contracts and representation of athlete clients. Because agents often represent a number of players, jurisdictional issues can arise. In the following case, the court addressed the issues of jurisdiction over an athlete agent. Sportrust Associates International, Inc. v. Sports Corp. In Sportrust Associates International, Inc. v. Sports Corp.,l the Eastern District of Virginia found that an agent who represented two Norfolk Admirals hockey players did not have the requisite contact with Virginia to create personal jurisdiction.2 The plaintiffs, who represented NHL players, sued the defendants, who also represented NHL players, and claimed that the defendants defamed their reputations, conspired against them, and tortiously interfered with their representation.3 As their defense, the defendants contended that Virginia had no personal jurisdiction over them.4 As the defendants' only connection with 1. 304 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Va. 2004). 2. Id. at 794. 3. Id. at 790-9 1. 4. Id at 791.