For many years, Vietnam’s horse race betting industry resembled a race without a rulebook.
Investors were attracted by the prospect of participating in one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies, yet they faced a fundamental challenge: horse race betting had been permitted through limited pilot projects, but there was no comprehensive legal framework governing licensing, operation, investor qualifications, betting products or regulatory supervision.
That is no longer the case.
The legal landscape changed fundamentally with the issuance of Decree No. 06/2017/ND-CP on the Business of Betting on Horse Racing, Greyhound Racing and International Football, which established Vietnam’s first comprehensive regulatory framework governing licensed betting activities. The sector has therefore moved beyond the question of legalization and entered a new phase focused on implementation, compliance and commercial viability.
When State Lines Become the Playing Field: The Chicago Bears’ Stadium Standoff and What It Means for Sports Development Law
The Chicago Bears’ search for a new stadium has become one of the most complex sports development stories in recent memory. In September 2021, the Bears entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Churchill Downs for the 326-acre site of the former Arlington International Racecourse in Arlington Heights, completing the $197.2 million purchase in February of 2023. When subsequent property tax negotiations with Arlington Heights stalled, Chicago and the State of Illinois entered the picture with their own competing proposal near Soldier Field. Then Indiana raised the stakes: Governor Mike Braun signed Senate Bill 27 in February 2026, establishing the Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority to help finance a potential Bears stadium in Hammond, Indiana, about 25 miles from downtown Chicago. As of early June 2026, Illinois lawmakers adjourned their spring session without passing a stadium bill, and the franchise stated it would “finalize its evaluation of both Arlington Heights and Hammond” on a late spring/early summer timeline.
The competing offers highlight how differently states can structure sports infrastructure deals. Indiana assembled a streamlined regional stadium authority empowered to issue state-backed bonds and leverage up to $1 billion in public financing, while establishing a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to funnel hotel, restaurant, and retail tax revenues back into stadium debt service. Additional financing mechanisms under SB 27 include a 12% ticket tax on all stadium events, a potential countywide 1% food and beverage tax in Lake and Porter Counties, and a doubling of Lake County’s innkeeper’s tax. Illinois, by contrast, struggled to coalesce around any framework: its Senate bill would have enabled Cook County municipalities to create local stadium authorities empowered to issue revenue bonds, with surrounding mixed-use development eligible for tax increment financing designation—but the House adjourned without voting on it.
Any move—whether to Arlington Heights, Hammond, or back to a Chicago site—must account for the team’s existing Soldier Field lease, under which the Bears could owe approximately $90 million if they depart before 2033—meaningful, but manageable relative to the scale of the overall project. The more consequential legal takeaway from the Illinois legislative failure is structural: Governor Pritzker recently noted that 38 states already have PILOT megaproject laws, characterizing Illinois as “literally behind the curve” with a “disorganized, dysfunctional” approach to property tax negotiation for large developments. Indiana’s ability to quickly assemble a credible, multi-layered financing package reflects years of enabling legislation that Illinois simply does not yet have. Counsel advising teams, municipalities, or lenders in these transactions must understand not only the deal structure itself, but whether the underlying statutory framework in a given jurisdiction can actually support it.
In order to meet the Bears’ stated timeline, Illinois would need to call a special legislative session this summer as its lawmakers are not scheduled to reconvene until November; noting, however, that any bill passed after the May 31 deadline established by the Illinois Constitution would require a three-fifths supermajority to take immediate effect. A move to Indiana would add the Bears to the long list of NFL franchises that have crossed city or state lines in search of better stadium terms and would offer a meaningful new template for how layered public finance tools can be used to attract a franchise to a jurisdiction without an existing NFL presence.
Ultimately, the broader lesson to be learned here may be that it becomes increasingly difficult for a team to complete its financing objectives when trying to structure a deal built on hastily assembled or legally untested enabling legislation. The saga of Oakland and the relocation of its legendary franchises offers a cautionary tale: the multi-year failure to produce a workable public financing framework contributed to the loss of both the Raiders and the Athletics to Las Vegas, each time ceding ground to a jurisdiction that had done the legislative groundwork in advance.
The Protect College Sports Act: What Universities and Conferences Need to Know
On May 27, 2026, Senators Cruz and Cantwell announced the Protect College Sports Act, a sweeping bipartisan bill that represents the most comprehensive federal attempt yet to impose legal order on college athletics. For universities and conferences, the significance of this legislation cannot be overstated. The bill would grant the NCAA and the College Sports Commission a long-sought limited antitrust exemption, enabling them to enforce rules governing athlete eligibility, transfers, and compensation ostensibly without the constant threat of state court litigation or competing state NIL regimes. The attempted antitrust shield, which has eluded the industry through years of failed legislative attempts – including the recently withdrawn SCORE Act – is the structural foundation on which the rest of the bill’s reforms rest. At the same time, the bill formalizes key elements of the House v. NCAA settlement into federal law, codifying the revenue-sharing framework while empowering the College Sports Commission (CSC) to police alleged above-cap spending – which the CSC has asserted includes the redirecting of corporate sponsorship dollars to rosters as third-party NIL to circumvent the $21.3 million annual cap.
For some programs utilizing creative measures to compensate their athletes, passage of this bill would represent a fundamental change in the compliance environment. The bill also limits in-season coaching movement, prohibits the formation of a so-called super league, creates an agent registry capping representation fees at 5%, and permits the pooling of media rights – all provisions that carry direct contractual and governance consequences for athletic departments and conference offices.
If this bill is enacted into law, institutions will face substantial operational and legal challenges. The transfer restriction provisions alone – limiting athletes to one transfer before a mandatory eligibility pause, with narrow exceptions – will require universities to revisit their roster management strategies, revisit NIL and revenue-sharing contract structures, and reexamine how those agreements interact with transfer portal activity. The bill’s provisions around athlete health, safety, and academic protections establish new mandatory standards that institutions will be required to meet, creating potential exposure for schools that fall short. The agent registry and fee-cap provisions will require robust compliance frameworks for athletic departments accustomed to operating in a largely unregulated agent market. And, while codifying the House settlement structure may bring stability, it also locks institutions into a compensation model still under active appellate review for its Title IX implications.. Equally notable is what the bill does not resolve: it leaves the employment status of athletes largely open, explicitly preserving the possibility that athletes could eventually be deemed employees or pursue collective bargaining. For institutions, that means managing long-term labor risk under a federal framework that has not foreclosed the most consequential question in the industry.
The path to enactment remains uncertain. The bill’s reception has already revealed fault lines within the industry itself, as the SEC and Big Ten commissioners were notably absent from a letter endorsing the bill signed by ACC and Big 12 leadership, and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has publicly questioned the process of endorsing legislation before reviewing the final draft. Nonetheless, the bipartisan architecture of the bill gives it a realistic chance of advancing further than its predecessors. Universities and conferences should not wait for final passage to begin preparing. The attorneys at Duane Morris’s Sports Law Group are closely monitoring the bill’s progress and are available to assist universities, conferences, and other industry stakeholders in navigating the legal implications as this legislation develops.
New Bill Seeks to “Let Kids Play” by Limiting Private Equity in Youth Sports
By AJ Rudowitz, Joseph J. Machi, Rebecca A. Guzman and Bryan Shapiro
On May 13, 2026, a bicameral coalition of Democratic lawmakers introduced the Let Kids Play Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that would effectively ban private equity from the youth sports industry. The bill represents the most direct federal legislative challenge yet to the growing consolidation of youth sports by institutional investors and it carries significant legal, regulatory and business implications for every stakeholder in the industry.
University of Utah Advances Private Equity Model for College Athletics Funding
The University of Utah is advancing a groundbreaking agreement with private-equity firm Otro Capital that is expected to generate more than $500 million for its athletics program. The deal creates a new for-profit entity, Utah Brands & Entertainment LLC, which will manage the commercial and revenue operations of the school’s athletic department, such as sponsorships, ticketing, licensing, concessions, and media-related revenue. The University of Utah will retain majority ownership and board control, while Otro Capital and a select group of major donors will acquire minority stakes.
This arrangement represents a significant shift in how a public university structures and finances its athletics operations. By blending private investment with donor participation, the model provides access to substantial capital at a time when athletic departments face rising costs tied to facilities, NIL activity, and anticipated revenue-sharing with student athletes. It also introduces new legal considerations, including governance design, transparency obligations for a for-profit entity attached to a public institution, and potential securities and conflict-of-interest issues arising from donor-investors gaining equity positions.
The partnership may also signal a broader trend toward hybrid public-private financing in college sports. The University of Utah is not the first to spin off its athletic department’s revenue streams into a private entity. However, the creation of a new for-profit entity, one that is majority-owned by the school but supported by private investors, underscores how rapidly the financial pressures of college sports are accelerating. Rising operational costs, the expansion of NIL opportunities, and the likelihood of direct revenue sharing with athletes have pushed universities to explore alternative funding mechanisms. For college athletics more broadly, the University of Utah’s model may become a blueprint. By blending university control with outside capital and professionalized operational management, the structure is designed to meet the commercial realities of today’s sports landscape while still preserving institutional oversight. If successful, this could influence everything from facilities funding and media rights strategy to athlete compensation and long-term planning. It also raises larger questions about how institutions reconcile what they have long dubbed as “amateurism” and their mission, with the sport’s growing commercial pressures.
Ultimately, the deal signals a broader evolution: college athletics is moving quickly toward professionalized, capital-intensive operations, and private equity (or debt) is likely to become a more common part of that ecosystem.
Georgia Seeks Enforcement of Liquidated Damages Provision in Ongoing NIL Conflict
The University of Georgia, through the University’s athletic association (UGAA), is seeking damages totaling $390,000 against a former football player, Damon Wilson II, after he elected to transfer to Missouri following the 2024 season. The demand stems from a clause in Wilson’s NIL contract that required him to forfeit the balance of his agreement if he transferred to another school.
Wilson signed a 14-month NIL deal in December 2024 through a third-party collective, reportedly worth $500,000 if he completed the full term. Payments were structured as monthly installments of $30,000, with two additional $40,000 bonuses contingent on compliance through future transfer-portal windows. The contract, however, also contained a liquidated-damages provision requiring that if Wilson left the team or entered the transfer portal, he would owe the remaining value of the contract in a lump sum. After reportedly receiving only one monthly payment before declaring his intent to transfer, the University—through its athletic association—has asserted that he now owes $390,000 under the exit clause.
This lawsuit carries outsized significance because it may become one of the first true test cases on the enforceability of buyout-style and liquidated-damages provisions in NIL agreements. To date, such clauses have been rare, largely untested, and clouded by uncertainty under traditional contract principles. A judicial decision upholding UGAA’s position could set a powerful precedent—effectively signaling to schools, collectives, and athletes nationwide that exit-fee mechanisms are viable and enforceable. Such a ruling could rapidly accelerate the adoption of buyout provisions across NIL contracts and fundamentally reshape the architecture of athlete compensation and mobility in the NIL era.
At the same time, the case squarely presents the question of whether the $390,000 figure represents a legitimate, good faith estimate of the collective’s anticipated losses or whether it crosses the line into an unenforceable penalty. Under longstanding contract law principles, liquidated-damages provisions are permissible only when they reasonably approximate the actual harm expected at the time of contracting. If a court concludes that the amount is disproportionate, punitive, or untethered to any measurable loss, the clause could be struck down as an impermissible penalty. Such a ruling could have an immediate effect on NIL and revenue share agreements across the country, as many contain similar purported liquidated damages provisions.
Wilson’s case could ultimately help set the first meaningful precedent on whether liquidated-damages clauses can function as an effective and legally defensible substitute for traditional buyout fees. If courts bless this model, it may open the door to a new era in NIL contracting—one in which exit-fee structures become a standard tool for shaping athlete mobility, program stability, and the broader economics of college sports.
NCAA Resets Rules on Student-Athlete Betting on Professional Sports
In a notable rebuke to the Division I Council’s recent policy push, NCAA Division I member schools have voted by a two-thirds majority to rescind a previously approved rule change that would have allowed student-athletes and athletics department staff to place wagers on professional sports. The proposal—introduced by the Council in October and scheduled to take effect on November 22, 2025—triggered swift and widespread backlash across the sports, media, and entertainment sectors. Following a 30-day review period, more than 240 Division I institutions voted to roll back the measure, reaffirming the NCAA’s longstanding prohibition on all forms of sports betting by student-athletes and athletics personnel.
Recent Investigations Heightening Scrutiny
Critics of the proposed rule change warned that the measure carried significant risks for the integrity of both collegiate and professional competition. Opponents emphasized that permitting student-athletes to wager on the very professional leagues they hope to enter could create inherent conflicts of interest, particularly in light of their relationships with scouts, prospective teammates, and coaches. They also cautioned that access to privileged or insider information—whether obtained intentionally or inadvertently—could undermine competitive fairness and expose student-athletes to substantial legal, ethical, and compliance concerns.
In line with the integrity risks, the NCAA’s reversal comes in the wake of several high-profile scandals, which likely contributed to the NCAA’s decision. For example, just days after the NCAA’s proposal was announced in October, certain NBA players were charged in a federal gambling investigation for allegedly sharing inside information and manipulating their performance, and certain MLB players were charged on counts including wire fraud and conspiracy to influence sporting events. In the college game, the NCAA permanently revoked the eligibility of numerous Division I men’s basketball players for placing bets on their own games, sharing inside information, and manipulating performance to influence prop bets and has announced ongoing investigations against many more, involving allegations of wagering on their own contests, sharing non-public information, and attempting to influence game outcomes.
The membership vote reflects a recalibration by the NCAA, which appeared poised to capitalize on the expanding legalized sports-wagering market by relaxing its long-standing restrictions. But the recent wave of high-profile gambling investigations likely underscored the inherent risks of such a change. In effect, while the sports-betting industry continues its rapid growth, the NCAA has stepped back from a policy that might have opened the door to new revenue opportunities—pulling the proposal before it ever truly got off the sideline.
Athlete to Owner: JuJu Watkins Joins Boston Legacy Football Club Investor Group
USC women’s basketball star JuJu Watkins has made history as the first known college athlete to directly invest in a professional women’s sports franchise. Watkins has joined the investor group behind Boston Legacy FC, the NWSL expansion club set to debut in 2026.
Watkins’ move reflects a growing trend: elite college athletes are increasingly using their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) earnings not only for endorsement deals, but to participate in the same types of long-term investment opportunities available to professional athletes.
NIL: From Endorsement Deals to Equity
Watkins’ investment is a powerful example of the continued evolution of the NIL marketplace, but it also highlights a new set of legal considerations. Equity stakes—particularly in professional sports franchises—carry potential complications, including:
- Securities law compliance and investor-qualification requirements
- Conflict-of-interest concerns
- School, conference, and NCAA amateurism rules
- Employment-status implications
Here, Watkins’ interest appears to be structured as a passive, minority investment in a privately held entity, a design that helps preserve NCAA eligibility and avoids triggering employment classification issues. Even so, athlete-investors must navigate the same risks as any private investor, making careful legal review essential to avoid outsized exposure or unfavorable terms.
Growing Investment Opportunities
Boston Legacy FC represents an attractive investment platform in a rapidly expanding women’s sports ecosystem. The club features a women-led ownership group and continues to draw significant capital commitments and prominent investors—now including Watkins, alongside Indiana Fever star Aliyah Boston, Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman, actress and director Elizabeth Banks, and former USC standout and current Chicago Bears quarterback Caleb Williams. This investor profile underscores the accelerating momentum behind women’s sports as a growth asset class—on and off the field.
As college athletes become stakeholders—not just endorsers—they will play a larger role in shaping both the NIL landscape and the broader sports-business ecosystem. Watkins’ investment is an early glimpse of that shift: the rise of the athlete-owner beginning at the collegiate level.
Nevada Supreme Court Rejects NFL’s Bid to Force Coach Jon Gruden into Arbitration
The battle between former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden and the NFL took a significant turn this week when the Nevada Supreme Court refused to force Gruden’s claims into arbitration. Gruden’s lawsuit alleges that the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell intentionally leaked private emails, triggering his resignation and damaging his reputation. The court’s ruling not only revives Gruden’s case in open court, as opposed to private and confidential arbitration, but also raises broader questions about the limits of arbitration clauses in professional sports contracts, particularly when the party seeking to compel arbitration is dealing with a former employee.
Arbitration Clauses, Unconscionability, and Former-Employee Status
In its August 11, 2025, decision, the Nevada Supreme Court, by a 5–2 vote, reversed a May 2024 panel ruling that favored arbitration. The majority found that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision was unconscionable as applied to Gruden. The court rejected the NFL’s attempt to invoke equitable estoppel to bind him to arbitration, holding that such doctrines do not apply to former employees in these circumstances. As a result, the trial court’s earlier refusal to compel arbitration stands, allowing Gruden’s case to proceed in a public forum.
Impact on the Litigation and the NFL’s Next Moves
The decision is a clear victory for Gruden, whose legal team framed it as an important win for employees challenging arbitration provisions they never expressly agreed to, or that no longer apply due to a change in status. For the NFL, the ruling is a setback but not necessarily the end of the road. The league has indicated it will explore further appeals, potentially including a rehearing before the Nevada Supreme Court or even review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Broader Implications for Sports Law
Beyond the immediate parties, the case underscores an emerging tension in sports law: the balance between enforcing arbitration clauses, which leagues often rely upon to resolve disputes privately, and ensuring that such clauses remain fair and enforceable under state law. For practitioners, this ruling is a reminder to closely examine the scope, applicability, and procedural fairness of arbitration provisions, and particularly where a dispute involves former employees or matters that extend beyond the employment relationship.
A Wave of Federal NIL Action Signals Big Changes Ahead
Over the past several weeks, there has been a surge of federal government activity aimed at reshaping the landscape of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in college athletics. From executive action to competing congressional bills, lawmakers and regulators are moving quickly to impose structure on what has become a chaotic and state-by-state patchwork. These developments carry major implications for both student-athletes and the institutions that support them.
Executive Action Brings New Urgency to NIL Reform
On July 24, 2025, the federal government took its most assertive step yet in regulating the NIL landscape. A new executive order prohibits third-party pay-for-play arrangements masked as NIL deals, directs several federal agencies to begin developing a framework for college athletics, which includes clarifying the employment status of student-athletes, and requiring protections for scholarships and non-revenue sports. While it stops short of creating new law, the order reflects growing momentum toward reining in the patchwork of state NIL regimes and restoring a more standardized framework for college athletics.
The SCORE Act Gains Traction in Congress
Meanwhile, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act continues to move forward in the U.S. House of Representatives. The proposed legislation would establish a national NIL standard, affirm that student-athletes are not employees, protect medical and academic resources, and provide liability shields to the NCAA and conferences under antitrust law, which is the only real way to protect the NCAA from continuous antitrust lawsuits. Supporters argue that the bill offers stability and clarity for athletes and institutions alike. However, critics caution that it could restrict athletes’ rights, especially in how it limits avenues for economic advancement and collective representation.
Athletes.org Advocates for a Different Path
In response, Athletes.org has backed an alternative federal bill—the College SPORTS Act—which focuses on athlete protections, health and safety standards, and preserving NIL rights without expanding employer-employee classifications. The legislation reinforces athletes’ ability to earn fair compensation through NIL deals while safeguarding against institutional retaliation. Unlike the SCORE Act, this proposal leans more heavily into athlete empowerment and transparency, reflecting a growing demand from current and former players for more robust legal protections and economic opportunities.
What This Means for Athletes and Universities
These developments are poised to reshape the legal and regulatory environment for universities and athletes alike. Institutions must prepare for potential changes in compliance obligations, athlete support standards, and NIL oversight. At the same time, athletes and their representatives should monitor the evolving legislative landscape to ensure their rights and opportunities are protected. Law firms advising in this space should remain agile—helping clients navigate shifting federal and state frameworks and aligning advocacy strategies with whatever direction NIL reform ultimately takes.