In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines how fan investment is moving audience participation to the beginning of film financing and creating new opportunities for filmmakers, investors, and entertainment newcomers.

Fan investment can lower the barrier to entry for creating entertainment, potentially allowing creators to reach audiences and attract financing without first securing representation. Representation can then add value once the creator is inside the proverbial room.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

Legion M has a novel business model. Through its investment offerings, fans can purchase stock in the company, invest in its Film Fund, or invest directly in individual films when those opportunities are available. These offerings allow fans to support financially the entertainment they want to see developed, produced, and distributed.

The opportunity is reminiscent of Green Bay Packers fans purchasing shares in the franchise. Packers shares are actual common stock, but they do not pay dividends and are generally purchased as an expression of support rather than for financial return. Legion M investments, by comparison, may provide a financial return but also carry the risk of loss. Certain direct film investments may include benefits such as having the investor’s name attached to the credits. In some ways, the model allows fans to participate in the physical production and distribution of entertainment, just as someone might use generative artificial intelligence to create content.

Traditionally, films are financed through a combination of studios, equity investors, lenders, distributors, tax incentives, and corporate partners. Some A-list actors invest in their own films and series or in projects they believe will be successful with audiences and/or tell a story that they are passionate about. Depending on the offering, Legion M investors may invest in the company, an individual production, or the distribution of completed films. This allows Legion M to seek audience support before a project is created or, through the Film Fund, before a completed film is distributed.

Legion M partnered with Ketchup Entertainment to support the theatrical release of Coyote vs. Acme, which had earned an estimated $47.8 million domestically through September 13, 2026. The Film Fund allocation for the movie sold out in less than 48 hours. This form of fan investment differs from donation-based or reward-based crowdfunding because fans contribute capital with the possibility of receiving a financial return, but they also accept the possibility of losing their investment. Under the Legion M Film Fund, investors purchase an interest in the release of finished films. Investors receive a portion of sales revenue until they recover their principal and a predetermined return, subject to the offering terms and investment risk.

The audience becoming a part of the business through financing is important because it allows fans to feel further connected to the film or television project. It also allows people outside the entertainment industry to invest. Fans can become ambassadors for a project because they have both an emotional and financial interest in its success.

Fan investors should be aware that an investment does not guarantee success. An investment also does not provide creative control unless the offering or another agreement expressly grants that authority. Audit, recoupment, and payment provisions are important because distributors, lenders, production and marketing expenses, and other participants may be paid first. The definitions of revenue and profits, along with the payment waterfall, may be among the most important contractual provisions in Hollywood film financing.

This audience-focused film financing model complements traditional film financing and is unlikely to replace it at this point. Studios, producers, and others involved in audience fundraising must explain investment risks clearly and comply with applicable securities laws and offering requirements. Securities laws, disclosures, and clearly written contractual terms are needed when audiences are asked to invest. A larger investor base may also create administrative and communication obligations even when investors do not receive creative control.

The audience has always financed entertainment through tickets, subscriptions, advertising attention, and purchases. Fan investment moves some of that financial participation to the beginning of the process, creating opportunities for filmmakers and audiences. Alternative financing can also give startups and entertainment newcomers another opportunity to succeed. It can lower the barrier to entry, which should be applauded, for creating entertainment, potentially allowing creators to reach audiences and attract financing without first securing representation. Representation can then add value once the creator is inside the proverbial room.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines whether prediction markets and sports betting platforms are good partners with sports leagues. As leagues enter sponsorship, licensing, official data, and integrity agreements with wagering businesses, the financial opportunities are apparent. These relationships also raise moral, legal, and governance questions involving competitive integrity, parity, consumer protection, participant conduct, and public trust.

Jeremy discusses how prediction markets differ from traditional sportsbooks and why markets regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission remain subject to challenges from state gaming regulators. The episode also explores Major League Baseball’s partnership with Polymarket, the U.S. Open’s partnership with Kalshi, and the tension created when sports organizations profit from wagering while disciplining players and other participants for betting. Additional topics include proposition bets, the misuse of nonpublic information, promotional credits, gambling addiction, personal responsibility, and Pete Rose’s eligibility for consideration by the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

As sports, wagering, finance, technology, and law continue converging, responsible growth will require clear restrictions, information sharing, monitoring, education, and meaningful enforcement. Success will depend on legal and business frameworks addressing official data, intellectual property, market types, participant conduct, consumer safeguards, and the respective authority of federal and state regulators. Prediction markets and betting platforms can be good partners only when the commercial relationship serves the sport without compromising the integrity of the competition.

(Season 8, Episode 35).

Listen as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print behind the biggest topics and most compelling legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports. The California Sports Lawyer® Podcast is currently ranked among FeedSpot’s top 10 entertainment law podcasts and sports law podcasts and is available on all major platforms.

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines whether prediction markets and sports betting platforms are good partners for sports leagues. The financial benefits are apparent, but these partnerships raise moral and governance questions involving competitive integrity, consumer protection, and public trust. The analysis considers how leagues can profit from wagering businesses while disciplining players and other participants for betting.

Integrity and parity are foundational to sports. Without integrity and parity, sports would feel empty and scripted.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

What is it about the human condition that makes enough never enough? Why is it that, after name, image, and likeness (NIL) laws were passed and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) changed its rules to allow college athletes to receive compensation from their NIL, college athletics developed revenue sharing systems administered by schools? Why is it that, after the United States Supreme Court held the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) unconstitutional in Murphy v. NCAA in 2018 and returned authority to the states to decide whether to legalize sports betting, professional sports leagues used the opportunity to broker sponsorship deals?

In ancient Greek and Roman societies, laurel leaves, commonly used in wreaths and headwear, carried religious and cultural significance. When Augustus restricted Roman triumphs and their laurel wreaths to the imperial family, the wreath became even more closely associated with exclusivity, status, and authority. Research on psychological reactance supports the broader point that restricting access can make something more desirable, just as outlawing prediction markets and sports betting may increase curiosity and demand rather than eliminate either.

The easy answer would be that business is business. The next easiest answer would be greed. A third answer might be a lack of foresight.

The question of whether prediction markets and sports betting platforms are good for professional sports leagues, teams, owners, or managers requires a much deeper analysis. Financially, prediction markets and betting platforms can clearly benefit sports organizations. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Integrity and parity are foundational to sports. Parity means a reasonable degree of competitive balance among teams or participants. Without integrity and parity, sports would feel empty and scripted. Many fans watch sports year after year because of their love for a team and the hope that their team might win. “This is our year,” a fan might say. On the other hand, sports are a form of entertainment, and this author has often heard fans say, “It is all scripted anyway,” or, “That player definitely took the points to cover.” A point spread is the projected margin of victory used to determine the outcome of certain wagers. Right or wrong, sports betting violations involving athletes and coaches have received substantial media coverage.

A prediction market allows participants to buy and sell contracts whose value depends on the outcome of a future event. A traditional sports betting platform accepts wagers under state gaming laws and establishes odds for possible outcomes. Sports event prediction markets are similar to sports betting from the consumer’s perspective, except that platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket US operate through designated contract markets rather than solely through sports betting systems licensed by individual states. A designated contract market is an exchange authorized and regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency that oversees United States derivatives markets.

The legal distinction remains contested because state regulators argue that sports event contracts are sports wagering subject to state gaming laws, and courts have reached different preliminary conclusions. Competition between the two business models can be better for consumers, but is increased access good for habitual bettors or other vulnerable consumers? What protections are prediction markets and betting companies instituting to guard against impropriety on the court and harm in the homes or on the phones of consumers?

The regulatory distinction was previously examined in Owning Probability and Betting Under Federal Oversight. Last week’s column discussed the role of government in decisions and policies involving social media, children, and parents. A similar question arises here. There are also questions of morality, personal responsibility, and the importance of sound policy.

PASPA went too far by prohibiting states from authorizing sports wagering, which violated the anti-commandeering principle of the United States Constitution. The anti-commandeering principle generally prevents the federal government from directing state legislatures to enact or maintain particular laws. The Supreme Court’s decision did not require states to legalize sports betting; it allowed each state to decide whether and how to authorize it. However, is opening every avenue through mobile applications, websites, and physical locations a good idea for prediction markets and sports betting?

Is gambling similar to alcohol regulation, including Prohibition, or is it more like a personal contract in which people choose their own destiny and accept responsibility until someone else is harmed or the contract is breached? Prohibition was the national constitutional ban on the production, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages from 1920 until its repeal in 1933. Ideally, laws will establish boundaries for what is allowed and where. Laws should not determine morality alone, but they can establish standards based on public safety and a shared set of moral values.

The model in this world is imperfect, no matter the circumstances. Major League Baseball (MLB) has partnered with Polymarket, and the U.S. Open has partnered with Kalshi. At the same time, sports governing bodies discipline participants for betting, making these developments interesting and ripe for reflection. MLB and the U.S. Open are therefore not merely observing the growth of prediction markets; they are entering commercial relationships with them.

There are similar models in which a team might have a sponsorship with Budweiser while a player who appears at a game intoxicated or is involved in a car crash or arrested for driving under the influence may violate laws and league policies. Such conduct could also affect the player’s performance and the outcome of a game. However, there is a difference between a participant manipulating an outcome connected to a proposition bet or event contract and a participant violating an unrelated law. A proposition bet, commonly called a prop bet, is a wager on a specific event or individual performance within a game rather than solely on the final result.

Intentionality may be important, but arguably more important is the fact that sports may be entertaining, but they are beautiful and loved because they are unscripted. In other words, sports are entertaining but are not entertainment in the traditional sense. Sports betting and prediction markets without adequate oversight can push sports toward entertainment as a construct because the financial product depends on the outcome. This concern was previously discussed in When Betting Becomes the Broadcast, Who Is to Blame—Leagues, Media, or Players?.

Hit King Pete Rose might be smirking right now. Rose later acknowledged betting on the Cincinnati Reds to win while managing the team, but he bet on his own team nonetheless. Major League Baseball removed Rose and other deceased individuals from its permanently ineligible list in May 2025, making him eligible for Hall of Fame consideration but not automatically granting him induction. Does that mean his conduct should continue to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, or should he be treated like athletes who used performance-enhancing drugs? Arguably, removing history is never a good idea, but telling the truth about what happened while noting the accomplishments is human.

The answer likely lies in the space between the free will of individuals, the responsibility of platforms to avoid improper inducements or deceptive practices, and programs designed to help people who suffer from gambling addiction. Prediction markets and betting companies should carefully consider whether account credits, bonuses, or purportedly free money improperly encourage gambling. Balance is key: encourage free enterprise, protect vulnerable consumers, and preserve the integrity of sports.

These are difficult questions. Policy can provide a path forward. They are nonetheless questions worth discussing and answering.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines whether government or parents should decide how children use social media. A court-approved settlement between Meta and a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general establishes new protections for users under 18, including default time limits, overnight restrictions, school-hour notification controls, age-assurance measures, and expanded parental tools.

Jeremy discusses how the settlement balances platform accountability and child protection against parental authority and family autonomy. The episode also explores the use of litigation and consent judgments to establish rules affecting millions of families, the influence of default settings, privacy concerns surrounding age-assurance technology, and whether government-backed protections may become permanent controls in practice.

As social media, technology, privacy, public policy, and law continue converging, protecting children will require responsible product design, truthful disclosures, meaningful parental tools, and accountability for unlawful conduct. Success will also depend on legal frameworks addressing data collection, age assurance, parental consent, platform features, transparency, and clear limits on government authority while preserving parents as the principal decision-makers in their children’s lives. 

(Season 8, Episode 34).

Listen in as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print on the biggest topics and most interesting legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports law. The top entertainment, media, and sports podcast is streaming on all major platforms!

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans argues that protecting children online should strengthen parental authority, not make the government the primary decision-maker over how children use social media.

People often do not read the fine print or adjust available features, which means a rule described as a default may become permanent in practice.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

Protecting children from potentially addictive technology is a legitimate parental and public interest. However, when a court-approved settlement with Meta establishes default limits on when and how teenagers may use social platforms, which features they may see, and when parents must intervene to change those settings, child protection begins to resemble government-directed parenting. That development should concern parents and make public officials, legislators, and courts wary of imposing similar controls without careful consideration of parental choice and family autonomy.

Meta entered into a court-approved settlement with a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general representing 52 U.S. jurisdictions, resolving claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed in ways that encouraged compulsive use by minors and that Meta misrepresented the associated risks. Without admitting wrongdoing, Meta agreed to implement new protections for users under 18 and to make payments over ten years. The agreement provides for approximately $12.7 billion in payments, with another approximately $5.3 billion contingent on TikTok and YouTube implementing specified protections and making corresponding payments.

The new protections include a default two-hour daily limit that applies cumulatively across Facebook and Instagram, restricted access between midnight and 6:00 a.m., muted notifications during school hours, stronger age-assurance measures, and expanded parental controls. Parents may override the Time Limit and Night Mode restrictions. Direct messaging is excluded from the Time Limit, Night Mode, and School Mode requirements so teenagers may continue communicating with friends and family.

There are three primary concerns with the Meta settlement. The first is that it establishes government-backed defaults affecting parental choice. Although parents retain the ability to change certain settings, defaults are influential. People often do not read the fine print or adjust available features, which means a rule described as a default may become permanent in practice.

The second concern is that these controls arose through litigation and settlement rather than legislation debated and enacted by elected representatives. The settlement process is lawful, and the resulting agreement received court approval. Nevertheless, using litigation to establish detailed platform rules affecting millions of families deserves careful scrutiny, transparency, and public discussion.

By pursuing litigation against Meta, government officials have influenced the rules governing minors’ use of social media. Government regulation intended to protect children is not new, but using a multistate settlement to establish detailed digital-platform restrictions presents a newer form of intervention. Ideally, parents should decide how, when, and where their children engage with social media.

Schools and teachers also exercise supervisory authority over students during school hours, including the authority to establish reasonable classroom technology policies. Those efforts should be applauded when they support education and student well-being. That school-based authority, however, is limited in time and purpose, just as government authority should be.

The third concern is whether this intervention will lead to broader controls. Once the government uses litigation or legislation to regulate lawful decisions within private family life, the boundaries matter. A measure justified as a narrow safety protection can become a precedent for wider controls. That possibility does not make every intervention improper, but it requires defined limits, transparency, public debate, and continued respect for parental authority.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that society has reached a point where social media use may become so compulsive that government intervention appears necessary. Whether Meta intentionally encouraged addictive behavior remains disputed. The lawsuit alleged that Meta designed features that drove excessive use, collected and used data belonging to children under 13, and misled users and families about platform safety. Parents cannot independently redesign recommendation systems, inspect internal company research, or control the architecture of a global platform. Government therefore has a legitimate role in enforcing laws against deceptive practices and unlawful conduct.

It is also true that many social media platforms operate through an advertising-supported business model. When access appears free, users provide the attention and data that make the platform valuable. Social media companies use activity and inferred interests to sell targeted advertising access. Companies such as Google and Meta derive substantial revenue by connecting advertisers with audiences while providing content and opportunities for human interaction.

Protecting minors should not quietly normalize government control over family decisions and social interaction. Government can require truthful disclosures, meaningful parental tools, appropriate safeguards, and accountability for unlawful conduct. Parents, however, should remain the principal decision-makers regarding their children’s daily social media use.

Parents and all users must also remain diligent about their own social media habits. What we watch, read, and spend time with shapes us. The goal should be to protect children by empowering parents, not to make government the permanent author of a family’s digital rules.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans is joined by veteran broadcast journalist, moderator, and content creator Dave Briggs. Currently a co-host of Connecting America and Sanity with Alisyn & Dave, Dave has spent more than 25 years across Fox News, CNN, NBC Sports, Turner Sports, Yahoo Finance, and Cheddar Business News. His career has included seven Olympic Games, a dozen Super Bowls, March Madness, and an appearance as an ATN news anchor in HBO’s Succession.

Jeremy and Dave discuss the business behind television news and sports programming, including how corporate priorities, editorial decisions, audience expectations, and economic incentives influence what viewers see on screen. They also consider what Succession captured about corporate media, editorial pressure, and the relationship between news and business.

The conversation examines the movement of sports rights among broadcast networks, cable channels, streaming services, and direct-to-consumer platforms. Jeremy and Dave explore where leverage is shifting and the next major legal and business fault lines in college athletics following NIL, athlete compensation, and revenue sharing.

Jeremy and Dave also discuss how artificial intelligence can improve journalism and sports production while preserving human judgment, transparency, privacy, and consent. As media professionals increasingly become independent creators, they examine how ownership of intellectual property, audience data, sponsorship rights, and distribution can give talent greater control over their careers and businesses.

(Season 8, Episode 33).

Listen in as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print on the biggest topics and most interesting legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports law. The top entertainment, media, and sports podcast is streaming on all major platforms!

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans discusses how Nielsen’s new co-viewing technology could reshape audience measurement, advertising, sponsorships, and media-rights deals in sports broadcasting.

Accurate data also helps establish contract terms and determine whether those terms have been satisfied when payment depends on viewership performance.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

When audiences watch sports, most of what is being experienced is localized. Meaning, people tend to watch live sports with friends, colleagues, or other fans. Sometimes, a live sports broadcast is watched alone, in a restaurant, with family, on a traditional cable channel, through a streaming platform, or even through a live television service like YouTube TV or on social media.

What has become harder to track is the number of people watching when groups are involved. Whether it is two people or fifty, current tracking systems are not always accurate, and they definitely do not identify all the viewers who are watching. One might be thinking: Who cares?

Well, people watching a live entertainment broadcast or any type of programming should care because, generally, the more people who watch, the more money is spent on advertising to reach those audiences. In a sense, more people watching means easier access and lower prices. Exclusivity usually means higher prices, fewer people watching, and more barriers to entry.

Nielsen is one of the top companies measuring audience viewership. In an age when people often watch content on multiple devices and across a variety of streaming, broadcast, and social media platforms, there is an even greater need for accurate viewership data. Viewership numbers also help during awards season in entertainment, media, and sports. Accurate data also helps establish contract terms and determine whether those terms have been satisfied when payment depends on viewership performance.

Nielsen’s new co-viewing technology uses proprietary wrist-worn devices resembling smartwatches to capture audio from television programming and passively determine what panelists are watching without requiring them to log in formally. Nielsen incorporates that information into its Big Data + Panel system, which combines representative household panels with data from set-top boxes, smart televisions, and participating streaming services. In a pilot involving major live events, the technology produced an average 4.19% increase in measured viewers. Nielsen is not creating a new audience. It is using technology to count viewers who are already present but are often invisible to the traditional ratings system.

A 4.19% increase may sound modest, but the number becomes meaningful when applied to a major sports broadcast. An audience previously measured at 10 million viewers could include approximately 419,000 additional viewers. At that scale, better measurement can affect advertising rates, audience guarantees, sponsorship value, and the price paid for media rights. When billions of dollars are committed to sports broadcasting, the difference between the audience being present and the audience being counted matters.

The technology does not solve every measurement problem. Nielsen’s wearable devices are used by panelists inside the home, meaning that audiences watching in restaurants, bars, stadiums, and other public spaces still present separate measurement challenges. Viewing through social media and emerging platforms can also produce different types of data. The goal is not to rely on one perfect number, but to understand how the number was produced, what it includes, and what may still be missing.

This means that lawyers, talent, and businesses should be aware of this technology and make sure the terms they are agreeing to or trying to secure actually make sense for them and their goals. This is where an audit provision in the agreement could help enforce the terms and conditions. Everyone should applaud the availability of better technology to show viewership numbers, as it means better deals and a better understanding of the marketplace. Everyone should equally give pause to the privacy of individuals.

One of the benefits of Nielsen’s panel-based ratings system is that participation is voluntary. People can choose to participate or not. On the other hand, some marketing and advertising tools can be deemed mandatory or essential tools. Be aware of the settings on your devices and adjust them accordingly. In the meantime, the new data will help dealmakers make more deals.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

Jeremy M. Evans, CEO of California Sports Lawyer®, will moderate “NIL at Five: Revenue Sharing, Regulation, and the Future of College Sports” during the American Bar Association Forum on Entertainment & Sports Industries’ Lights, Camera, ATL: ESI Fall Conference in Atlanta.

Five years into the NIL era, the panel will assess the current state of collegiate athlete revenue sharing and endorsement compensation markets. The discussion will also address NCAA and federal government efforts to regulate athlete compensation, the impact of the House v. NCAA settlement on college sports, and what the next five years may hold for intercollegiate athletics.

Panelists

• Don Remy — Former NCAA Chief Operating Officer and Legal Executive
• Kordell Caldwell — Partner, Baker Donelson

Moderator

• Jeremy M. Evans — CEO, California Sports Lawyer®

Conference Details

• Conference: Lights, Camera, ATL: ESI Fall Conference
• Dates: October 7–9, 2026
• Venue: Grand Hyatt Atlanta in Buckhead
• Location: Atlanta, Georgia
• Presented by: American Bar Association Forum on Entertainment & Sports Industries

Event link: View the conference information and register.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Jeremy M. Evans will join Chad Eberhardt for “When the Rules Change: Negotiating the Next Deal,” presented by the San Diego County Bar Association’s Entertainment & Sports Section.

As professional sports continue to evolve, attorneys and agents must negotiate player and coaching agreements while accounting for uncertainty in governing rules. The panel will address sports contracts, collective bargaining, NIL, risk management, anticipated rule changes, and strategies for protecting clients in a changing legal and business environment.

Panelists

• Chad Eberhardt — MLBPA Certified Agent, Eberhardt Law Group
• Jeremy M. Evans — CEO and Managing Attorney, California Sports Lawyer®

Moderator

• Matthew Spolsky — Attorney, Clark Hill

Event Details

• Date: Thursday, August 27, 2026
• Time: 5:30–7:00 PM
• Credit: Non-CLE
• Location: Clark Hill LLP, 350 Tenth Ave, Suite 1200, San Diego, CA 92101
• Presented by: San Diego County Bar Association Entertainment & Sports Section
• Sponsor and host: Clark Hill LLP

Event link: View the event details and register.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Jeremy M. Evans, CEO of California Sports Lawyer® and Past President of the California Lawyers Association, will speak at the California Lawyers Association 2026 Annual Meeting in San Diego.

The General Session, “Decision-Making in Sports and the Law: Who Calls the Plays and Why It Matters,” will bring together senior leaders whose careers span law, executive leadership, and strategic growth in major sports organizations.

The panel will discuss how legal analysis shapes high-stakes choices, including franchise leadership, commercial partnerships, governance, compliance, and organizational direction in a rapidly changing sports landscape.

Panelists

• Terezka Zabka — General Counsel, Vice President, San Diego Padres
• Ryan Perry — General Counsel, San Diego FC
• Jeremy M. Evans — CEO, California Sports Lawyer®; Past President, California Lawyers Association

Moderator

• Brent Turman — Shareholder, Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.

Session Details

• Date: Friday, October 23, 2026
• Time: 12:30–1:30 PM PDT
• Location: Pacific Ballroom A/B, Sheraton San Diego Resort
• Credit: 1.0 Hour MCLE

Event link: View the Annual Meeting program and register.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Jeremy M. Evans, CEO and Managing Attorney of California Sports Lawyer®, will speak at the 36th Annual Entertainment Law Institute, presented by The University of Texas School of Law and UT Law CLE.

His session, “Ethics at the Intersection: Attorney vs. Agent and Manager Roles in Sports & Entertainment,” will examine the ethical tensions and overlapping responsibilities that can arise when attorneys, agents, and managers advise clients in the sports and entertainment industries.

The presentation will address conflicts of interest, fiduciary duties, regulatory considerations, and practical approaches to structuring professional relationships, navigating dual roles, and maintaining compliance in a dynamic dealmaking environment.

Event Details

• Date: Thursday, September 10, 2026
• Time: 8:30 AM
• Location: AT&T Hotel and Conference Center, Austin, Texas
• Program: 36th Annual Entertainment Law Institute
• Presenter: Jeremy M. Evans, CEO and Managing Attorney, California Sports Lawyer®

Event link: View the program and register.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.  

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines why the next media empire will be built around live experiences. As digital content and streaming technology create an abundance of media, live entertainment remains scarce, increasing the value of experiences that combine intellectual property, technology, venues, ticketing, and direct audience participation.

Jeremy discusses how Sphere’s The Wizard of Oz and MARI’s proposed acquisition of ATG Entertainment reflect the convergence of content, production, physical distribution, ticketing, and audience relationships. The episode also explores how artificial intelligence and immersive technology can transform existing intellectual property, how live experiences generate revenue beyond ticket sales, and why content libraries may become the foundation for the future of live entertainment.

As entertainment, media, sports, intellectual property, technology, and law continue converging, companies that can repeatedly transform intellectual property into live experiences across venues and markets may be positioned to build enduring media businesses. Success will depend on legal and business structures addressing talent and intellectual property rights, technology licenses, music, approvals, venue terms, sponsorships, ticketing data, territories, and future formats. 

(Season 8, Episode 32).

Listen in as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print on the biggest topics and most interesting legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports law. The top entertainment, media, and sports podcast is streaming on all major platforms!

You can listen to the podcast, HERE. 

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.  

About Bleav:

Bleav (pronounced believe) is a sports and entertainment studio and nationwide sports network. From athletes who played for the teams to passionate experts on topics you want to hear, Bleav is the #1 podcast network for professionals and fans. With 500 shows, 800 hosts with a combined 50M followers, 1000 hours of original content per month, and networks covering NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAAF, NCAAB, SEC, NHL, soccer, pop culture and more, Bleav is your destination for creators and fans of sports, teams and topics. Every Team. Every Topic. Everywhere! We Bleav in our teams, topics, and professionals. #DoYouBleav!?

Copyright © 2026.  California Sports Lawyer®.  All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans discusses why the next media empires will be built around live experiences.

[L]ive entertainment remains a scarce resource that requires live human talent and/or human participants.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

The explosion of digital content and streaming technology means that there is an abundance of media to consume. Music, television series, and films are available immediately with plastic or metal controllers, phones, and opposable thumbs. However, live entertainment remains a scarce resource that requires live human talent and/or human participants. Media companies that build around live experiences, concerts, and engagements with the use of performances and technology such as generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) will likely find success.

The Sphere in Las Vegas, Nevada, has famously taken The Wizard of Oz and turned it into a multisensory experience to take existing intellectual property (“IP”) and add real special effects with falling Styrofoam apples, smells, shaking seats, and bursts of air to simulate wind. Coupled with the digital effects and AI, Oz makes for an experience that is unlike any other. The show has been a massive, repeatable success that does not necessarily need live talent, just an audience enjoying an existing film in a new format. It is the equivalent of a drive-in movie, but within a protected environment with increased access to the elements in the film. Sphere Entertainment reports that the experience welcomed more than 3.6 million guests and generated more than $450 million in ticket sales during its first year. The format is repeatable without requiring live talent, relying instead on audiences experiencing established IP in a new way.

There is also Iron Mike Legacy: The Mike Tyson Immersive Experience, which is scheduled to open at Flamingo Las Vegas in fall 2026. The licensed Mike Tyson IP will give participants an opportunity to experience Tyson’s life and career through augmented reality, virtual reality, holograms, projection mapping, and other immersive technologies. Although holographic elements have appeared at concerts and awards shows before, this project applies immersive technology throughout a standalone attraction. In providing legal counsel on the project, the author saw firsthand how many rights, technologies, and commercial relationships must align to create a scalable live experience.

There is also MARI, a global events and experiences company founded in 2025 by Ari Emanuel, which agreed to acquire ATG Entertainment from Providence Equity Partners, subject to regulatory approval. Emanuel co-founded Endeavor and is now executive chair and CEO of TKO Group, whose businesses include UFC, WWE, PBR, IMG, and On Location. Mark Shapiro, a principal investor and board member of MARI, is TKO’s president and chief operating officer and previously held senior leadership positions at ESPN, Six Flags, and Endeavor. ATG owns, operates, or programs approximately 70 venues while also producing theatrical works and operating ticketing businesses, giving MARI the potential to connect live programming, production, physical distribution, ticketing, and direct audience relationships.

The point is not that live events will overtake digital content. Many people spend more time on their phones scrolling social media and otherwise engaging online than they do living in the real live world, but live events provide an alternative and mix of options. There is an additional layer that combines a digital experience with a live event.

The intricacy of live events is that it extends beyond watching a series or film or even streaming music for enjoyment. In other words, the economics for live events extend beyond buying a subscription or buying a ticket. The venue for a live event can provide premium access, hospitality, merchandise, sponsorships, licensing, content extensions, customer data, and international replication. Live events are a complement and diversification of content options not a mutually exclusive decision. For example, just because someone watches a series or film does not mean the same person will skip a concert or live event or experience.

The dealmaking involved with live entertainment, especially as it mixes with technology, is that IP can scale very quickly. Counsel may need to secure talent and IP rights, archival materials for screen time and experiences, technology licenses, music, approvals, venue terms, sponsorship categories, ticketing data, territories, and future formats. The legal and business architecture can determine whether an experience can expand into additional venues and markets. Combining existing and derivative IP with live entertainment, AI, and other technologies can create nearly unlimited possibilities.

The next media empires and those with long-tail economic prospects are those with great IP and streaming libraries. The content library and ownership or licensing of IP will be the foundation on which the future of live entertainment is built. The winners will be companies that can repeatedly transform intellectual property into live experiences across venues and markets.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans analyzes how the Protect College Sports Act could significantly reshape college athletics. With the legislation placed on the U.S. Senate’s September calendar, its national standards could determine how schools, conferences, athletes, and governing associations approach compensation, eligibility, competition, and education.

Jeremy discusses why support from the Big Ten and SEC matters, how limited antitrust protection could strengthen the enforcement of uniform rules, and why the Act may provide much-needed stability across college sports. The episode also explores name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, revenue sharing, transfers, athlete eligibility, agent conduct, health and educational protections, athlete representation, and collective bargaining.

As sports, education, business, labor, and law continue converging, the Protect College Sports Act could establish the most consequential national framework of the NIL era. Its ultimate effectiveness would still depend on courts defining legal boundaries, conferences and schools applying workable standards, and athletes having a meaningful voice. An act of Congress may not resolve every issue, but it could fundamentally change how college sports are governed and conducted. 

(Season 8, Episode 31).

Listen in as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print on the biggest topics and most interesting legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports law. The top entertainment, media, and sports podcast is streaming on all major platforms!

You can listen to the podcast, HERE.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.  

About Bleav:

Bleav (pronounced believe) is a sports and entertainment studio and nationwide sports network. From athletes who played for the teams to passionate experts on topics you want to hear, Bleav is the #1 podcast network for professionals and fans. With 500 shows, 800 hosts with a combined 50M followers, 1000 hours of original content per month, and networks covering NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAAF, NCAAB, SEC, NHL, soccer, pop culture and more, Bleav is your destination for creators and fans of sports, teams and topics. Every Team. Every Topic. Everywhere! We Bleav in our teams, topics, and professionals. #DoYouBleav!?

Copyright © 2026.  California Sports Lawyer®.  All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans discusses the Protect College Sports Act, which was placed on the U.S. Senate’s September calendar and may well help determine the future of college sports.

College sports are fun to watch, but have become difficult to comprehend.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

College sports are fun to watch, but have become difficult to comprehend. As much as people will applaud college athletes being paid while going to school and playing a sport, there is a growing concern that without guardrails and with continued greed, college sports will continue their push toward professionalism. College sports were built for amateurism, but now operate with professional-sports money.

The principles of free markets and capitalism are not mutually exclusive with the introduction of regulation. Markets need assurance, policy, and enforcement that the markets will remain open, free, and that the parties involved play by the rules. College sports and in particular men’s basketball and football in Division I are no different. There need to be assurances, policies, and enforcement mechanisms for paid college sports to remain competitive and resemble something familiar to fans, coaches, and athletes alike.

While the U.S. Congress is working on the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act, it is on the calendar for September. The Act’s journey has been a difficult one and nearly died like many of its predecessor college legislative bills. Whether the Act ultimately passes remains uncertain, but some financial terms for athletes and schools have already been established. The FBS season begins August 29, with North Carolina and TCU playing in Dublin, Ireland.

In another “bipartisan” effort, the SEC and Big Ten Conferences announced recently that they support the Protect College Sports Act. The two biggest and most powerful college conferences in the United States placing their support behind the Protect College Sports Act after much negotiation and compromise is major news. The Protect College Sports Act would establish national rules governing name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, revenue sharing, athlete eligibility, transfers, agent conduct, and health and educational protections. It would also provide schools, conferences, and athletic associations with limited antitrust protection and greater authority to enforce those uniform rules.

On its surface, the Act would seemingly address many of the concerns facing men’s college basketball and football: transfer portal issues, cash to pay for players, and limitations on eligibility to prevent 27-year-olds from playing 19-year-olds in college for example (not to mention the lack of pursuing an educational goal while enrolled in school). It also helps that the Act addresses the antitrust issues facing the NCAA and its member institutions anytime they try to regulate the sport. Somewhere down the line, colleges also need to address the acceptance of large payouts in head coaching contracts and a plan of action when it comes to conference realignment.

However, an Act of Congress will not be the end. While Congress debates and votes on the merits of legislative change to college sports, there is a simultaneous effort to unionize athletes outside of Congress. Players at Stanford University, which is located in Palo Alto, California, and competes in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), have formed the first college player-led chapter of the College Football Players Association. Private efforts to organize college sports are driven by the idea that college athletes deserve a seat at the proverbial negotiation table. One issue in this is that college sports are not professional sports and the life of a college athlete is sometimes roughly one to four years long in terms of playing time. On the other hand, the expansion of NIL compensation and pay-to-play has intensified unionization efforts.

The courts also play a role and often have in college sports governance. The NCAA Division I Cabinet adopted a new age-based eligibility model in June 2026, often called the “5-for-5” rule, that generally provides a continuous five-year eligibility period beginning with full-time college enrollment or the academic year following an athlete’s 19th birthday, whichever occurs first. A federal judge then ordered the NCAA to provide an additional year of eligibility to certain Division I athletes who began competing during the 2022–23 academic year and otherwise would have exhausted their eligibility. The judge later clarified that the order does not permit athletes who signed professional contracts to return to college or eliminate other NCAA rules governing professional participation and transfers.

For college sports to shape its own future, it is going to need Congress and the Protect College Sports Act. It will also need courts to define legal boundaries, conferences and schools to enforce workable rules, and athletes to have a meaningful voice in the process. However, this author would stop short of endorsing unionization for athletes whose college careers are brief and whose primary purpose remains obtaining an education.

Coaches and fans must be willing to support a system that protects competition, education, and opportunity. Otherwise, the piecemeal approach that has defined the NIL era will continue. College sports need one understandable rulebook for playing the game, conducting business, and obtaining an education.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.