By Kian Sohrabi and Laura Zeng, Harvard Law School
The Harvard Law School Sports Law Symposium convened practitioners from leagues, teams, and law firms to examine the evolving legal and business landscape of modern sports. Panelists emphasized the industry’s growing complexity and the tightening relationship between law, capital, and competition.
The sports gambling panel engaged most directly with current legal uncertainty. Panelists focused on the post-Murphy v. NCAA landscape, where the Supreme Court’s invalidation of PASPA shifted primary regulatory authority to the states. Recent developments—particularly the rise of prediction markets—have unsettled that framework.
Panelists drew a distinction between traditional sports betting and so-called “event contracts,” which allow users to trade on the outcome of sporting events. Dan Wallach, of Wallach Legal, explained that, unlike sportsbooks that attempt to balance both sides of a wager, prediction markets operate on volume and market pricing. Several speakers questioned whether the distinction is meaningful. Wallach noted that federal judges have increasingly treated the products as functionally indistinguishable.
The regulatory implications are significant. State regulators built licensing and taxation regimes around sports betting; now they face entities claiming federal commodities law applies instead. One panelist described the mismatch starkly: states are “bringing a butter knife to a gun fight” against well-funded private actors. Wallach stressed that those actors are backed by elite legal talent and deep financial resources. Fellow panelist Jordan Maynard, of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, recalled a frustrating exchange with a prediction market attorney who dismissed consumer harm concerns, essentially asking why regulators should care if users lose money—an attitude that underscored the panel’s broader worries about accountability.
The panel also highlighted the unresolved question of federal involvement. While Murphy confirmed Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, it has yet to do so comprehensively. Absent federal action, panelists predicted a fragmented system—potentially dividing authority between state-regulated sportsbooks and federally framed event markets. Melinda Roth, a Professor at Washington & Lee University, predicted the United States will ultimately operate under a bifurcated regulatory system separating traditional sports betting from event contracts. At the same time, speakers emphasized that legalization has not created gambling in the United States so much as shifted it into a more transparent and, in some respects, safer environment, particularly where states have allocated revenue toward problem gambling programs. Roth pointed to Massachusetts as an example, noting that a portion of gambling revenue is directed toward addressing addiction and public health concerns.
The in-house counsel panel shifted focus from regulation to the internal realities of legal practice inside sports organizations. Panelists described a role that has expanded significantly in both scope and intensity. Ed Weiss, of Fenway Sports Group, described the “velocity of practice”: modern sports operations demand immediate legal guidance, leaving little room for extended deliberation.
Growing ownership sophistication has driven much of this change. Panelists repeatedly emphasized ownership’s influence on organizational priorities, with one speaker summarizing the dynamic: “ownership, ownership, ownership.” Mali Friedman, of the Washington Commanders, relayed this phrase, underscoring how ownership sets the tone for culture, strategy, and legal priorities. Ownership structures shape both strategic direction and the day-to-day work of legal departments—from major transactions like team sales and stadium deals to routine sponsorship agreements and compliance. The scope of legal work typically reflects the ambitions of ownership.
Panelists described tighter integration between in-house and outside counsel: rather than separate actors, outside firms increasingly serve as extensions of internal legal teams, especially for specialized work like litigation or complex transactions. Weiss and James Parker, of the Boston Celtics, stressed the continued importance of foundational legal training; several panelists recommended that aspiring sports lawyers start at law firms to build core skills before going in-house.
The private capital panel examined the surge of investment into sports, particularly from private equity. Loren Shokes, of the University of Southern California and Roc Nation and other panelists highlighted the extent to which professional sports have evolved from “mom-and-pop” operations into institutional assets with multibillion-dollar valuations. This shift has both expanded access to capital and introduced new considerations for leagues and teams.
Leagues have taken varying approaches to private equity. Shokes noted that the NBA has embraced investment openly, while the NFL has historically imposed stricter limits on ownership stakes and investment structures—differences that reflect distinct governance philosophies.
Speakers emphasized that private equity involvement is not purely financial. Gene Choi, of George Washington University and Major League Baseball, explained that investors often bring strategic expertise, data-driven approaches, and operational experience that can shape how teams and leagues grow. In emerging areas such as women’s sports, panelists suggested that private capital has played a particularly significant role in accelerating development and increasing visibility. Michelle Hyncik, representing the Blitzer Family and Bolt Ventures, highlighted the rapid growth of leagues like the NWSL as a result of increased private investment.
The discussion also turned to global investment. Unlike the United States, where federal intervention in private equity has been limited, other jurisdictions impose constraints that affect cross-border transactions. As valuations rise, panelists expect growing interest from international investors and evolving league rules on ownership.
The soccer panel offered a comparative look at U.S. league structure and governance. Panelists outlined the role of the U.S. Soccer Federation in establishing divisional standards and described how leagues such as Major League Soccer and the National Women’s Soccer League have adopted variations of a “single-entity” model. Under this structure, the league centrally owns key assets and player contracts, with teams operating as investors in the broader enterprise.
This model has drawn legal scrutiny, most notably in Moultrie, where a court suggested teams may still compete independently in certain labor markets. Gregory Brehm noted that subsequent unionization has altered the landscape, but the single-entity framework’s boundaries remain unsettled.
Beyond governance, the panel highlighted infrastructure as critical to league growth. Stadium ownership, training facilities, and real estate development drive both financial stability and talent recruitment. Eric Hagen mentioned the particular importance of soccer-specific stadiums for player recruitment and a team’s financial stability. At the same time, panelists emphasized the challenges facing leagues such as the NWSL, where Brehm noted that teams often operate as tenants and must navigate scheduling constraints that can affect attendance and visibility.
Across panels, the symposium underscored the breadth of sports law today. From gambling regulation to private capital’s growing role and the expanding responsibilities of in-house counsel, the discussions reflected an industry in rapid evolution. As legal frameworks adapt, the intersection of law, business, and sport will remain a dynamic and contested space.
