In legal developments within the world of professional sports, particularly regarding sports betting, a recent case involving Cincinnati Bengals’ star quarterback, Joe Burrow, and renowned sports enthusiast Dave Portnoy, has triggered a possible reevaluation of the established legal jurisprudence. It is commonly accepted that sports fans, under normal circumstances, lack a “legally cognizable right, interest, or injury” to sue a professional sports team for violation of league rules, as exemplified by the 2010 federal court case of Mayer v. Belichick.
This long-standing legal stance has been challenged due to Joe Burrow’s recent injury and public statements by Dave Portnoy, the owner of Barstool Sports, of his intention to sue the Bengals. According to reports, Portnoy declared his intention following the revelation of the possible pre-existing condition of Burrow’s injury. The basis of Portnoy’s claim is a substantial $120,000 bet placed on the Bengals, on which he now invites others to join him in a class-action lawsuit against the team.
Interestingly, the Mayer precedent was broadened to include sports bettors in the March 2020 decision of Oliver v. Houston Astros, LLC. In this case, the plaintiff sought to sue both the Houston Astros and Boston Red Sox MLB teams following revelations of unlawful sign-stealing schemes by the teams. The plaintiff was pursuing recovery of his gambling losses from betting against the Astros and Red Sox in the 2017 and 2018 World Series, oblivious to the teams’ illegal advantage. However, the court dismissed the claim, outlining that gambling losses were between the bettor and third party bookmakers, not the sports teams.
Contrary to this, a recent incident has triggered debates on whether sports teams should be held accountable for concealment of player injuries, which potentially affects wagering outcomes. Joe Burrow injured his wrist during a game, prematurely ending his season and sparking financial losses for those who had placed bets on the Bengals or Burrow. It was subsequently unearthed from a since-deleted video that Burrow had already been wearing a brace on his wrist well before the injury, thereby indicating a possible violation of the NFL’s Personnel (Injury) Report Policy, which mandates the reporting of all player injuries.
The question now at the forefront is whether sports bettors have any legal recourse against sports teams when their wagering decisions are unduly influenced by non-disclosure of player injuries. The NFL recently cleared the Bengals of any wrongdoing, but do bettors like Portnoy, who were financially impacted due to this incident, have any legal recourse?
As per current legal precedence, any potential lawsuit against the Bengals would likely not succeed, given that various factors could have contributed to their failure to cover the spread, even with a healthy Burrow. Though bettors are now deliberating whether this incident necessitates the revisiting of legacy legal decisions such as those in Mayer v. Belichick.
For further, detailed insight into this case, consider the analysis performed by Dan Lust and Brady Foster, attorneys at Moritt Hock & Hamroff and members of the firm’s sports law practice group, available here.