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

LOG IN
LOG IN


2013 Annual Survey: Recent Developments in Sports Law 485 (2013)

handle is hein.blasports/ansrvds0024 and id is 1 raw text is: SURVEY 2013 ANNUAL SURVEY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SPORTS LAW INTRODUCTION This survey provides a snapshot of important sports industry cases decided between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Not every sports-related case decided in 2013 is included in this survey. Instead, this survey briefly summaries a wide range of cases that impacted the sports industry in 2013. The survey intends to provide the reader with greater insight into the many current sports-related legal issues and to highlight the most recent developments in sports law. To better assist the reader, this survey is arranged alphabetically by the specific substantive area of law associated with each sports law case. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law covers the actions of the federal, state, and local governments, such as adjudicating, rulemaking, and regulatory enforcement. One interesting case involving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is included below. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. FCCI Comcast Cable offers cable television to subscribers in several different packages known as tiers. Comcast carries two of its own sports networks, Versus and the Golf Channel, on its most broadly distributed tiers, and carries another sports network, the Tennis Channel, on a less broadly distributed tier. In 2009, the TennisChannel successfully filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) alleging that Comcast violated the Communications Act of 1964 by refusing to broadcastthe Tennis Channel as widely as its own sports networks. Comcast filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking to review the FCC's order providing the Tennis Channel with the same coverage as Versus and the Golf Channel. The court granted Comcast's petition because the FCC did not provide evidence that Comcast would receive any benefit from placing 1. 717 F.3d 982 (D.C. Cir. 2013).