| SPORTSJUDGE.COM
COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL |
X | Index 9154-R
Date Issued: December 1, 2011 League Type: Head-to-Head Dispute: LINEUP DISPUTE, PRIZE DISPUTE COURT UPHOLDS DISQUALIFICATION OF LARKNESS FOR ILLEGAL LINEUP BUT CAUTIONS AGAINST ENFORCING GAG PUNISHMENT. |
| SWEETNESS FANTASY FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Petitioner, against – LARKNESS Respondent |
::::: :::: | |
| X | ||
Introduction:
The Sweetness Fantasy Football League is a 12 team fantasy football league. The league uses CBS Sports as its host site and has adopted the standard CBS Sports league constitution, along with its own rules regarding entry fees and prizes. (For more on the implications of league structure, see Marc Edelman, A Short Treatise on Fantasy Sports and the Law, How America Regulates its New National Pastime, Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law (2012)).
According to the Sweetness Fantasy Football League rules, all teams must pay an entry fee at the beginning of the season. At the end of the season, prize money is paid out to league winners. In addition, as a punishment for finishing in last place, the team with the worst record must “perform bikram yoga in a full sweatsuit and mock the rest of his class,” while being videotaped. If multiple teams finish tied for last, the team with the fewest total points for the season must perform the gag.
The Dispute:
On Tuesday November 29, 2011, the owner of the Larkness fantasy football team contacted the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football, fearing that his team was going to finish in last place and thus be called upon to perform the yoga gag. Given that other members of the Sweetness Fantasy Football League have not agreed to the use of our services, this opinion is merely advisory. (See Marc Edelman, A Short Treatise on Fantasy Sports and the Law, How America Regulates its New National Pastime, Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law (2012)). Thus, it has no actual legal effect.
Nevertheless, Larkness wants this court to recommend the reversal of his league’s Week No. 7 decision that disqualified his team from its weekly game for having an extra player on its roster. According to the owner of Larkness, he attempted to set his starting lineup for week seven on a mobile device, using the CBS Mobile application. However, unskilled with this technology (and perhaps, in his own words, inebriated), he picked up free agent running back Ryan Grant and while accidentally failing to drop a player, wide receiver Antonio Brown
Due to having an extra player on his roster, the CBS Sports computer program disqualified Larkness for the week and listed the team as having lost its game 33-0 rather than winning it 65-33. However, after informing the Sweetness Fantasy Football League Commissioner of this result, the commissioner briefly reversed the ruling and instated a 65-33 result in favor of Larkness. Then, after several league owners complained, the Commissioner held a league vote, at which time it was decided to reinstate the Week 7 disqualification and the 33-0 result.
Analysis:
Without getting into all of the arguments raised by Larkness, the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football concludes that the 33-0 loss from Week No. 7 must stand. All teams in the Sweetness Fantasy Football League have spent the past six weeks devising strategies in reliance on this 33-0 result. Given the decision by Larkness to challenge the result at this very late stage, the court finds his challenge void under the equitable legal doctrine of “laches.”
For those unfamiliar with the equitable doctrine of laches, this court has explained in the past that the doctrine entails “the failure to assert one’s legal rights in a timely manner. A successful defense of laches will find the court denying the request for equitable relief.”) (See Web Opinion No. 8187-R: Gold Fantasy Football League v. Black & Gold Team (Dec. 11, 2010);
Indeed, this court has made a longstanding practice of applying the equitable doctrine of laches where a fantasy team owner has been unduly slow in challenging a ruling. For instance, in the 2008 case Commissioner v. Teams 1, 2 & 3, the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football found that a challenge to an uneven trade brought 22 days after the fact was void due to the doctrine of laches, given that three weeks of games had since elapsed. (See Commissioner v. Teams 1, 2 & 3: Index No. 2559-T (Dec. 4, 2008)). Similarly, in the 2010 case Gold Fantasy Football League v. Black & Gold Team, this court applied the doctrine of laches to reject a fantasy football owners’ challenge to the league commissioner placing a given player onto the wrong roster. (See Web Opinion No. 8187-R: Gold Fantasy Football League v. Black & Gold Team (Dec. 11, 2010)). Likewise, just days ago in The Badger Classic Fantasy Football League v. Dayne Train, this court used the doctrine of laches to deny an owner the remedy of altering a team’s fantasy football roster after a game result had been completed. (See Web Opinion No. 9153-R: The Badger Classic Fantasy Football League v. Dain Train (Nov. 23, 2011) (finding a challenge to an eliminated fantasy football team’s failure to set his fantasy lineup was unduly slothful).
Here, the doctrine of laches applies with much the same force as in the three above cases. The present dispute took place in Week No. 7 (late October). However, only now in Week No. 13—after teams in the league have long relied on the league standings—is the court presented with this challenge. The challenge is too slow. Thus, the week No. 7 game results cannot be overturned.
With that said, however, this dispute is not over a traditional fantasy sports dispute that related to a monetary prize. Rather, it is the request of a team owner to avoid a punishment—a gag of sorts—that is not directly related to league entry fees or prize money. This court is confounded as to why in the age of the Internet and YouTube, a grown man would place himself at the risk of ridicule and scorn by engaging in an activity of this sort, with the potential to go viral. Given the minor error committed by Larkness in having a single extra player on his roster, as well as the fact that CBS Sports could never have perceived its strict liability rule on roster size leading to a punishment gag of this nature, the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football, if it had binding power over this matter, would absolve Larkness of the obligation to engage in such a punishment exercise if his team finishes in a tie for last place, and loses the tie breaker by less than 65 points.
If given the power, the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football also would consider voiding entirely the “last place punishment,” which does not seem to flow in any direct way from the nature of the fantasy sports contest. However, without an agreement by all parties in the league to use our services, the court has no such binding authority.
Conclusion:
The SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football advises the Sweetness Fantasy Football League, for purposes of league standings, to maintain its disqualification of Larkness in Week No. 7 with the game result remaining fixed at 33-0. However, in the event that Larkness finishes the season in a tie for last place and loses the last place tie-breaker by less than the amount of points he would have earned in Week 7 but-for the disqualification, the Court advises the Sweetness Fantasy Football League to absolve Larkness of completing his last place task, and thus no team should have to perform bikram yoga in a sweatsuit this season.