By Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
Although the Oklahoma City Thunder were beaten by the San Antonio Spurs in the Western Conference Finals, their star guard Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is still battling on, albeit in a different arena than that of the Paycom Center. On May 22, 2026, Gilgeous-Alexander, through his attorney Eric Fishman of law firm ArentFox Schiff LLP, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Underdog Sports demanding that the company discontinue the use of his name, image, and likeness across its various platforms including its website, apps, promotional emails, push notifications, and influencer placements, together with any accompanying physical merchandise that the sport company has or may produce and is currently promoting.
At the center of the controversy is a board game (yes, that is correct, an old-fashioned board game and not an app) known as Unethical Hoops created by Underdog. Modeled after the classic Milton Bradley board game Operation, Unethical Hoops features a caricature depiction that clearly resembles Gilgeous-Alexander and is a clear reference to criticism that the two-time NBA MVP draws fouls by falling to the floor after shots or by manipulating contact to bait referees into blowing the whistle (In other words – he flops). In fact, some fans and media figures view his foul-drawing skills as an “unethical” way to play basketball.
Underdog has allegedly produced approximately one hundred copies of the satirical board game as part of a promotional giveaway campaign which has gained widespread attention after being amplified through social media and endorsements from other NBA payers and personalities. And although both the board game and the promotional campaign may be intended as satire, Gilgeous-Alexander’s legal team views the matter differently, arguing the Underdog is using the athlete’s name, image and likeness rights without authorization and deriving commercial benefit from his identity. In other words, Gilgeous-Alexander claims that Underdog, through its board game, is violating his “right of publicity”.
The law involving an individual’s right of publicity generally allows a person, particularly celebrities and professional athletes, to both control and monetize the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, voice, and other identifying characteristics. What is interesting, however, is that unlike copyright or trademark, there is no comprehensive federal statute governing the right of publicity, instead, it is governed by a patchwork of state statutes and common law rulings. Oklahoma, where Gilgeous-Alexander is employed, recognizes these rights, as does California, which often serves as a benchmark in celebrity name, image and likeness disputes. Therefore, Gilgeous-Alexander’s right of publicity argument appears straightforward: Unethical Hoops used and continues to use his highly valuable and recognizable image and public persona as the central feature in a board game and accompanying promotional campaign designed to be monetized, all without obtaining a license or his authorization. As a result, his right of publicity rights have been violated.
Underdog, however, did not flop when receiving the cease-and-desist letter since it possesses significant legal defenses to Gilgeous-Alexander’s claims rooted in various free speech principles. Federal and state courts have also long recognized that parody, satire, commentary, and criticism occupy a protected place under the First Amendment. A key legal question therefore would likely be whether Unethical Hoops constitutes protected expressive speech or an unauthorized commercial product. In this situation, courts often apply balancing tests that weigh publicity rights against free expression interests and the fact that the game exaggerates public criticism of Gilgeous-Alexander could strengthen arguments that it functions as satire or commentary rather than simple commercial exploitation.
What is interesting about this case is that it arrives during a time when athlete name, image and likeness rights have become increasingly valuable at both the professional and collegiate sports levels. Companies routinely seek creative ways to capitalize on athlete popularity, while athletes and their representatives aggressively protect brand value. A successful claim by Gilgeous-Alexander could reinforce the importance of obtaining licenses or other forms of authorization before incorporating recognizable athletes into commercial promotions. On the other hand, a win for Underdog could strengthen protections for satirical sports content and other parody-based marketing campaigns.
In addition, this case highlights the growing tension between sports culture and intellectual property law. Modern sports discourse thrives on memes, jokes, and social media commentary. As brands increasingly participate in that culture, legal disputes over where humor ends and commercial exploitation begins are likely to become more commonplace. The outcome of this case could therefore help define how far businesses can go when using humor and parody to capitalize on the public image of professional athletes. When the final buzzer sounds on this dispute, we in the sports world may well have an answer. Just hope no one flops first.
…
Dancing Through the Raindrops: Navigating the Future of College Athletics
By Anna Giambelluca, Esq., Legal Editor
The 2026 Sports Lawyers Association conference ended on a timely note with a panel examining the unpredictable future of college athletics.
The panel, titled “The Future of College Athletics: Law, Labor, and the Next Era” was moderated by Warren Zola of the Carroll School of Management at Boston College, and featured Jon Duncan, Vice President of Enforcement at the NCAA, Sean Frazier, Vice President and Director of Athletics and Recreation at Northern Illinois University, and Anil Gollahalli, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of the Big Ten Conference. Meredith Page, Chair of the NCAA Division I Student Athlete Advocacy Committee was unable to attend. While the student-athlete perspective was certainly missed, the remaining panelists provided incredible insight into an evolving future that still appears blurry even to those helping shape it.
The panelists joked early on that they intentionally avoided preparing together beforehand because anything discussed days earlier would change and be moot by the time the panel began. That sentiment became one of the defining themes of the discussion: college athletics has entered a period of constant recalibration.
Zola framed the discussion around a central question facing the industry: how can college athletics continue to evolve while still maintaining a meaningful connection to higher education? Much of the panel focused on the tension between commercialization and education. NIL compensation, revenue sharing, the transfer portal, and athlete mobility have changed the structure of college athletics, but the panelists repeatedly emphasized that long-term consequences of those changes remain unclear.
When asked what about college athletics’ current model keeps him awake at night, Sean Frazier responded the lack of accountability while emphasizing his strong belief in the importance of college athletics being a pathway to higher education.
“For me, it’s always been about access to education,” Frazier said. “I would not be here if I did not have a college scholarship. So, there’s a balance. We cannot lose the essence of the graduation model, but we also have to recognize that intellectual property is now attached to athletics. Maybe this should have happened a long time ago, but now we need guardrails to preserve what we have. I am not saying amateurism is dead, but it’s dead.”
Frazier referred to college athletics as “quasi-professional” arguing that the industry can no longer pretend it operates under the same amateurism model that existed even a few years ag. He stressed that schools still have an obligation to preserve athletics as a pathway to higher education.
Frazier acknowledged that many of the current issues facing college athletics stem from how quickly the industry evolved. “We went down a road without having checks and balances in place,” Frazier said. “I take full accountability for that. We recognize that those things are not working. Now it is our obligation to get it back on track for the future.”
Duncan Highlights Challenges Around Sports Betting
Duncan echoed concerns about the unintended consequences of the modern NIL landscape, particularly in relation to enforcement and integrity issues. He noted that the transfer portal and constant athlete movement can create opportunities for academic misconduct, while the introduction of significant NIL money has introduced entirely new compliance concerns.
One issue Duncan highlighted was sports betting. According to Duncan, some student-athletes who feel left out of the NIL economy may become vulnerable to compromising the integrity of competitions in an effort to “get theirs,” whether through gambling, sharing insider information, or other misconduct.
The panel also spent significant time discussing the reality that there is no single “college athletics model” anymore. Gollahalli stressed that the industry often talks about college sports as though it is a “monolith,” where every institution faces the same challenges, when in reality the needs and priorities of schools differ dramatically. What works for one conference or institution may be entirely unsustainable for another, particularly as schools continue trying to navigate NIL, revenue sharing, roster limits, and athlete mobility under rapidly changing legal and financial pressures.
Gollahalli emphasized the need for patience. “In the history of seismic change in any industry, it never goes smoothly. And it’s not going smoothly here. We have fundamentally shifted the way we think about collegiate athletics at every level…We’re trying to dance through raindrops.”
The panel then moved to one of the most heavily debated issues in sports law today: whether student-athletes will (or should) eventually become employees of their institutions. While none of the panelists claimed to have definitive answers, the discussion highlighted just how complicated the issue has become.
Gollahalli explained that employment law frameworks often rely on “control tests” as opposed to distinctions between revenue-generating and non-revenue-generating athletes, creating uncertainty for schools attempting to prepare for what may come next. He also referenced the growing significance of the Johnson v. NCAA litigation, particularly the language within the concurrence that may eventually differentiate revenue-generating athletes from others.
Gollahalli stated that most student-athletes do not want to be employees due to the implications that come along with it. “Do we want a world where we’re firing student-athletes for dropping passes or missing field goals?” Gollahalli asked.
The panelists emphasized that employment status would impact far more than compensation alone, potentially affecting workers’ compensation systems, collective bargaining structures, roster management, and the long-term viability of Olympic and non-revenue sports programs.
The discussion also raised questions about whether increased compensation and contracting activity should change how student-athletes are treated in enforcement matters. Duncan explained that historically, the NCAA has been hesitant to charge student-athletes directly, focusing instead on adults such as coaches, boosters, and administrators. But in the current environment, where some athletes are contracting parties earning six or seven figures, he questioned whether that approach still makes sense.
“With newfound flexibility and freedom comes new responsibility,” Duncan said.
Zola then asked the million-dollar question: what are the tangible solutions?
Frazier advocated for stronger guardrails and greater accountability across the industry while also expressing support for some form of collective bargaining and more uniform federal standards. He argued that the lack of agent certification and regulation has contributed to the perception that college athletics lacks control over its current landscape.
Duncan emphasized the challenge the NCAA faces in attempting to govern institutions with vastly different priorities, resources, and philosophies. Describing the NCAA as the “humble hired help of an HOA,” Duncan explained that the organization is ultimately tasked with trying to determine the collective will of more than 1,000 member institutions while simultaneously navigating litigation, political pressure, and rapidly changing rules.
When asked what he would change if given a “magic wand,” Gollahalli pointed to the growing tendency for disputes within college athletics to immediately jump to litigation. Gollahalli said he wished there was a greater recognition that institutions and athletes are voluntarily participating in a system with agreed-upon rules, even if those rules are imperfect.
Referencing the Southern Methodist University death penalty, Gollahalli noted that the university accepted the punishment rather than immediately filing a lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s authority.
The panelists also discussed potential paths forward, including federal legislation, collective bargaining, conference-based governance models, and clearer rules surrounding third-party NIL. Gollahalli cautioned that federal legislation could be either “very helpful or very hurtful” depending on how it is structured.
Still, despite the uncertainty surrounding the current system, the panelists consistently pushed back on the idea that college athletics is broken.
“To be clear, college sports is thriving,” Gollahalli stated. Viewership continues to increase. Revenue continues to grow. Opportunities for athletes continue to expand. According to the panelists, the issue is not whether college athletics can survive, but whether the industry can build a sustainable structure around the realities of modern college sports.
Frazier quoted advice from his late father: “If you don’t adapt, you die.”
Toward the end of the discussion, the panel shifted toward the future generation of lawyers entering the industry. They encouraged attendees to view the current instability not as chaos, but as an opportunity to help shape what comes next. Duncan urged young lawyers to become “problem solvers” rather than “issue spotters,” emphasizing the industry needs innovative thinking even more than legal analysis.
The final question of the panel asked each speaker to describe the current state of college athletics in one word.
Evolving. Dynamic. Complicated.
The panel made clear that college athletics is no longer operating under the old model, even if we are still trying to determine what fully replaces it.
