In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans discusses how the prospect of a Major League Baseball lockout is affecting contract decisions and what is at stake for players, teams, and fans.

To say the current dispute is over money would be too simplistic. Money is a concern, but the real concern is how money is made, distributed, used, and the consequences surrounding the same.

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

~

Major League Baseball’s (MLB) current collective bargaining agreement expires December 1, 2026, and a management lockout is expected if the parties do not reach a deal. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the MLB Players Association (MLBPA) and MLB’s clubs is a five-year agreement that lays out the terms and conditions of employment in professional baseball. The NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLS also use CBAs to establish rules for their players and leagues, although the terms and lengths of those agreements differ.

To say the current dispute is over money would be too simplistic. Money is a concern, but the real concern is how money is made, distributed, used, and the consequences surrounding the same. A lockout could have devastating consequences for the league and teams, but also cause a loss in popularity. Fans have less sympathy for professional sports leagues and athletes negotiating over dollars and cents in the million to billion range.

First, what happens during a lockout?

A lockout is initiated by the owners and prevents players from working for their clubs while negotiations continue. In MLB’s 2021–22 lockout, clubs could not sign free agents, extend or renegotiate player contracts, make trades, or conduct other player transactions. Players could not use team facilities or work with club personnel. A lockout in December would interrupt the offseason business of baseball immediately, but it would not necessarily mean that regular-season games are lost. The previous MLB lockout ended before the 2022 season began. MLB’s explanation of the previous lockout provides a useful comparison, although the rules and circumstances of any new stoppage would need to be assessed at that time.

Second, what happens to existing contracts?

A lockout does not simply erase a player’s signed contract. It does, however, prevent clubs and players from carrying on ordinary contract business during the stoppage. Under MLB’s explanation of the prior lockout, players generally received their salaries during the regular season rather than the offseason, while certain compensation already earned or vested before the stoppage could still be paid. The harder questions arise if a lockout reaches scheduled games: how missed games affect salary, service time, benefits, and the length of the season could become part of the negotiations themselves. In the meantime, players and teams must decide whether to make deals under the current rules or wait to see what the next agreement provides.

That decision is already relevant to contract options, qualifying offers, and free agency. A player might prefer the certainty of a deal today, while another might believe that waiting will bring a better market. A club faces the same question from the other side of the table. It may want to secure a player before transactions stop, but it does not yet know whether the next CBA will change the economic rules under which that contract operates. Front Office Sports reports that the possibility of a lockout is already compressing the offseason player market.

Third, what lockouts and labor stoppages have occurred in sports?

Baseball has experienced both player strikes and owner lockouts. The 1994–95 strike, which was initiated by players, ended the 1994 season and canceled the postseason. The 2021–22 lockout, which was initiated by owners, lasted 99 days but ended in time for the parties to agree on a new CBA before regular-season games were played. These are different kinds of stoppages, and their different outcomes show why a December lockout should be taken seriously without assuming that another World Series will be lost. The MLBPA’s labor history lists the sport’s strikes and lockouts.

Other leagues offer reminders of what is at stake. The NFL resolved its 2011 lockout before losing regular-season games. The NBA’s 2011 lockout shortened its season to 66 games, while the NHL lost its entire 2004–05 season to a lockout. The point is that a work stoppage can range from an offseason disruption to a lasting injury to the schedule and the relationships built around it.

Fourth, what are the disputed issues?

The most visible divide is the owners’ proposal for a salary cap and floor. MLB argues that a system limiting spending at the top while requiring spending at the bottom would improve competitive balance. The MLBPA opposes a salary cap and argues that it would restrict player compensation and the market for their services. Those positions reflect different views of how clubs should compete and how much of baseball’s revenue should flow to players. MLB’s account of its proposal and the MLBPA’s response show the distance between them.

The disagreement reaches beyond the cap. The parties have proposed changes affecting minimum salaries, arbitration, free agency, revenue sharing, rosters, and the transaction calendar. Even the number and timing of games matter because they affect players’ work, ticket sales, broadcast inventory, and postseason revenue. The MLBPA has proposed increased revenue sharing tied to incentives for lower-revenue clubs to compete, while MLB has proposed other structural changes as part of its cap-and-floor approach. The question is whether the parties can agree on what competitive balance means before they decide how to pay for it.

At its heart, the dispute is over how baseball’s financial pie should be divided and how its teams should compete. The players want stronger compensation and more opportunity to negotiate their value. The owners argue that a salary cap and floor would give more teams a chance to compete and make spending more predictable. Both sides say they want a competitive league, but they disagree on whether limiting what a team may spend will help baseball or restrict its players. Sports matter, as shown by the fans who watch, the broadcasters who pay for media rights, the players who play, and the owners who buy franchises. Advertisers similarly want access to those fans. Whether professional baseball looks similar or changes, the goal should be a game that grows in popularity and creates opportunity and revenue for all parties.

Fifth, what can be done to solve the disputed issues and broker a deal?

The parties should negotiate the means of improving competition as carefully as the goal itself. Revenue sharing, payroll incentives, minimum compensation, and the existing competitive balance tax each affect clubs and players differently. A proposal that helps a lower-revenue club spend more is different from one that limits what another club may pay its players. A deal must account for both.

Waiting also has a price. Broadcasters and sponsors plan around games; stadium employees and nearby businesses plan around the season; and fans decide how much time and money to invest in their teams. The looming deadline may prompt deals, but it may also cause players and clubs to make decisions out of fear of what comes next. Baseball’s owners and players have every right to negotiate hard. They should consider whether the cost of waiting will be measured only in contract dollars, or in the confidence of the people who make the game valuable.

~

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 discusses why Congress should end the jock tax and establish fairer rules for athletes and entertainers working across state lines. A brief work visit can create another tax obligation, filing requirement, and professional expense. The question is whether athletes and entertainers should be excluded from protections proposed for other traveling workers.

Jeremy discusses California’s duty-day calculations and Cam Newton’s estimated tax associated with Super Bowl 50, which exceeded his bonus for appearing in the championship. The episode explains how annual compensation is allocated to a state and why credits for taxes paid elsewhere can reduce overlapping taxation without eliminating compliance costs. Additional topics include court decisions limiting Cleveland’s income allocation and Pittsburgh’s discriminatory nonresident facility tax, along with the distinction between a tax surviving a constitutional challenge and representing sound policy.

The discussion also considers the proposed Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2025, its general threshold of more than 30 workdays for nonresident taxation, and its express exclusions for professional athletes and entertainers. States have legitimate interests in collecting revenue, but tax policy should also account for fairness, compliance costs, and decisions about where to work and live. Congress should establish consistent protections for brief work visits that include athletes and entertainers, who would continue paying federal income taxes and applicable taxes in their state of residence. 

(Season 8, Episode 42).

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 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.

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 the jock tax, its impact on athletes and entertainers, and why Congress should establish fairer rules for work across state lines.

While taxes can pay for the common good, like roads and infrastructure improvements, should taxes harm individuals for being successful? Jock taxes seem to go after talent because of their income levels, not their actual impact in the state.

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

~

A recent conversation with a tax attorney colleague raised a question about fairness in sports: should athletes face another state or city income tax obligation every time their work takes them on the road? The same question goes for entertainers who perform in other states. While taxes can pay for the common good, like roads and infrastructure improvements, should taxes harm individuals for being successful? Jock taxes seem to go after talent because of their income levels, not their actual impact in the state. Imposing another tax obligation for a brief work visit seems excessive and gratuitous, particularly when proposed federal legislation would protect many traveling employees while expressly excluding professional athletes and entertainers.

Famously, former Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton faced an estimated California tax bill of approximately $87,800 attributable to seven duty days surrounding Super Bowl 50, exceeding his $51,000 bonus for appearing in the game. Adding insult to financial tax injury, the Panthers lost to the Denver Broncos at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California. The estimate allocated part of Newton’s annual compensation to California rather than taxing only his Super Bowl bonus. That distinction matters, but so does the result: the estimated tax associated with the visit exceeded the additional compensation received for playing in the championship.

California’s tax laws are especially egregious in their reach. For professional team athletes, compensation is generally allocated using California duty days divided by total duty days, including applicable practices, travel, and games. The FTB’s Residency and Sourcing Technical Manual, Sections 3980–3995, identifies Revenue and Taxation Code §17954 and discusses the athlete allocation rules. Entertainers also face California tax on income sourced to the state, although the allocation depends on the services and compensation involved. These rules create another filing obligation and potential tax liability even when the California work lasts only a small part of the year.

A significant and often overlooked aspect of the financial burden imposed by California’s and other states’ jock taxes is the cost of tax attorneys and certified public accountants hired to address multiple returns, recordkeeping, and compliance. Credits for taxes paid to another state can reduce overlapping taxation, so it should not be assumed that every road tax is added in full to the athlete’s home-state tax. However, a credit does not eliminate the work required to calculate the income, prepare the returns, and document the claim. Athletes and entertainers should not be excluded from protections offered to other traveling workers simply because their work is more visible.

Courts have imposed limits on jock taxes. In Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Board of Review (2015), the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected Cleveland’s games-played allocation because it reached compensation for work performed outside the city, while recognizing the city’s authority to tax locally earned compensation. The court also upheld the exclusion of professional athletes from Ohio’s then-existing 12-day exemption against an equal-protection challenge. In NHLPA v. City of Pittsburgh (2025), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania invalidated Pittsburgh’s discriminatory nonresident facility tax under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Uniformity Clause. These decisions establish limits, but they do not eliminate the underlying taxing authority. A tax can survive a constitutional challenge and still represent poor policy.

Interestingly, the introduced text of S. 1443, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2025, generally proposes a threshold of more than 30 workdays in a calendar year before a nonresident state can tax covered employee compensation. It expressly excludes professional athletes and entertainers under §2(d)(2), along with certain production employees and public figures. This is proposed legislation, not an existing nationwide exemption. Again, beyond the income and visibility associated with these professions, why should they be treated differently? Not every athlete or entertainer earns a superstar’s income. Maybe if California eased its tax burdens, more former Californians would move back to the Golden State and more athletes and entertainers would choose to work here permanently.

States have a legitimate interest in funding the services that support sporting events and performances. That interest does not answer why athletes and entertainers should be excluded from protections proposed for other traveling workers. Congress should use its authority over interstate commerce to end discriminatory athlete and entertainer taxes and establish consistent protections for brief work visits. At a minimum, those protections should include the professional athletes and entertainers expressly excluded from the proposed 30-day threshold. Athletes and entertainers would continue paying federal income taxes and applicable taxes in their state of residence.

Part of this is common sense to attract more business to highly taxed states. Part of this is making sure innovation and talent are not penalized for being successful. California legislators seem unlikely to do this on their own, and Congress should take action. The state’s Proposition 40 would impose a one-time wealth tax on covered billionaires, although real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts generally would be excluded. The concern is whether such a tax could eventually expand to reach additional taxpayers. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also recognizes that some billionaires could leave California in response, reducing ongoing state income tax revenue.

The jock tax is unfair and warrants federal reform. Business sense and people’s behavioral patterns should be considered when passing laws. Many Californians have begun to accept the high taxes here as a “beauty and weather tax,” but have those taxes not already become too burdensome?

~

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 how athlete health data can create contract leverage and raise risk.  Following his appearance on a sports AI panel during LA Tech Week at Pepperdine Graziadio Business School, Jeremy discusses how information collected to improve training and recovery can also affect contract negotiations, trades, and commercial opportunities.  The questions extend beyond who owns the information to who can collect, access, and use it.

The episode explores privacy laws, collective bargaining protections, and the difference between medical evaluations and AI-generated injury predictions.  Jeremy discusses the NBA’s restrictions on using specified wearable data in contract negotiations, unauthorized access to medical records, and how concerns about Isaiah Thomas’s hip changed the terms of the Boston–Cleveland trade.  Additional topics include how professional leagues, individual sports, and college athletics manage athlete information, along with the risks of confidential health information reaching sports bettors.

The discussion also considers licensing, compensation, exclusivity, security, and how long data may be retained or used after an athlete changes teams, transfers, or retires.  Playing agreements, medical authorizations, sponsorship and NIL contracts, and technology licenses may involve the same information while granting different rights.  Athlete health data can support performance and create business opportunities, but inaccurate information or unauthorized use can harm an athlete’s career.  The rights to collect, use, and share that information should be clearly negotiated in the deal. 

(Season 8, Episode 41).

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 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.

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 how athlete health data can create contract leverage and raise risks involving privacy, compensation, and control.

Athlete health data, combined with artificial intelligence and technology, can make sports more engaging for fans, support injury prevention, and create excitement. The same information, if inaccurate or misinterpreted, could lead to unnecessary underuse of an athlete and potentially harm contract negotiations.

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

~

During last week’s "The Future of Sports AI: Building Toward LA28" panel at Pepperdine Graziadio Business School’s LA Tech Week event, this author spoke about the growing value of athlete performance and health data. The question goes beyond who owns the information to who can collect it, access it, and use it to make decisions. A wearable that helps an athlete improve training or recovery could also generate information that influences contract negotiations, affects a potential trade, or helps develop a commercial AI product. Those different uses create opportunities for athletes, teams, brands, and technology companies, but they also raise questions about permission, compensation, accuracy, and accountability.

Athlete health data can reveal patterns in workload, recovery, and movement, but an AI-generated injury prediction is not a diagnosis or a guarantee of future availability. Research demonstrates the importance of validating predictive models in independent athlete populations before relying on them clinically. Legally, HIPAA, California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the CCPA, as amended by the CPRA can govern different parts of the collection, protection, and disclosure of health information, depending on the organization and records involved; HIPAA does not automatically cover every wearable or team-held employment record. The ADA and California’s FEHA also constrain medical inquiries and discriminatory employment decisions.

Under the NBA–NBPA collective bargaining agreement, physical examinations can be conditions of a player contract, and relevant medical information may be shared through authorized processes connected to a contemplated trade. Article XXII, Section 13 prohibits teams from using data collected from wearables worn at their request in future contract negotiations, trades, or waivers. The agreement also provides player access and restricts public disclosure and commercialization of that wearable data. Those protections do not eliminate the possibility of leaks: federal investigators documented unauthorized access to an NFL player’s records at Jackson Health System after a photograph of his medical information appeared in the media in 2015. That incident illustrates why permission to obtain medical information must be accompanied by controls over who can access it and what they can do with it.

Medical evaluations can also change the terms of a deal. In 2017, Cleveland’s concerns about Isaiah Thomas’s hip following a physical put its trade with Boston for Kyrie Irving in doubt. The teams completed the trade after Boston added a second-round draft pick. The episode shows how medical information can affect an athlete’s perceived value and the parties’ negotiating positions. Incomplete disclosure creates a separate risk by preventing a trading partner from properly evaluating a deal. The objective must be accurate information shared with authorized recipients for permitted purposes.

Different sports manage athlete information through different combinations of rules, agreements, and privacy protections. The NBA’s collective bargaining agreement restricts using specified team-requested wearable data in contract negotiations, while MLB’s agreement makes wearable use voluntary and restricts disclosure and commercial exploitation. The NFLPA’s WHOOP partnership emphasizes player ownership and opportunities to commercialize health data. In individual sports, the ATP’s wearable program promises confidentiality, while the PGA TOUR’s WHOOP partnership includes selected biometric information in broadcasts. College athletics adds another layer: the NCAA recommends written performance technology policies, while school-maintained student health records may fall under FERPA rather than HIPAA. Permission to collect information for training or research should not be assumed to include permission to commercialize it.

The contract should first identify what is being licensed and for how long. Original measurements, medical records, performance analysis, injury predictions, and products developed from the information should be addressed separately. An agreement should specify whether the permitted purpose is training, treatment, research, broadcasting, sponsorship, or AI model development, along with who can access the information and whether it can be sublicensed. The collection period, license term, and retention period may differ. Compensation, exclusivity, security, access, correction procedures, and responsibility for unauthorized disclosure also matter. The parties should address what happens when an athlete transfers, changes teams, retires, or ends the relationship, including whether existing predictions, trained models, or commercial products may continue to be used.

These agreements must also be considered together. A playing agreement, school authorization, sponsorship, brand or NIL agreement, technology subscription, and data license may involve the same information while granting different rights for different periods. The athlete, team or school, medical providers, and technology company should understand those differences before information is collected or shared. Where possible, the agreements should align permitted uses, access, confidentiality, retention, and termination obligations, with a clear process for resolving conflicts. Understanding the agreement does not excuse a prohibited use, and an individual agreement cannot simply override applicable law or collective bargaining restrictions. Each party should understand the value being exchanged and the limits on its use.

Athlete health data, combined with artificial intelligence and technology, can make sports more engaging for fans, support injury prevention, and create excitement. The same information, if inaccurate or misinterpreted, could lead to unnecessary underuse of an athlete and potentially harm contract negotiations. Medical reports cannot capture every aspect of an athlete’s determination, recovery, willpower, and ability to compete. Athlete health data can also become valuable information for sports betting, making unauthorized access and disclosure a concern. The NBA’s findings in the Jontay Porter case included his disclosure of confidential health information to someone he knew was an NBA bettor. That information should be protected as carefully as personal medical records and held as closely as bank account information. The rights to collect, use, and share athlete health data should also be clearly negotiated in the deal. It is that valuable commercially and medically.

~

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 who could profit from expanding the College Football Playoff from 12 to 24 teams. NIL deals, revenue sharing, and player movement are changing college athletics and giving programs more ways to build competitive rosters. A larger playoff could create more opportunities to compete for a championship, along with additional revenue and compelling matchups.

Jeremy discusses ongoing media rights negotiations, the possibility of reducing the regular season to 11 games while retaining conference championships, and a proposed limit of one FCS opponent per FBS team. The episode considers how additional playoff revenue would be weighed against lost regular season revenue, athlete workload, travel, and guarantee payments to FCS programs. The discussion also explores private capital and institutional control, drawing on the Jeanie Buss–Lakers arrangement and Utah’s private equity deal.

The episode examines television and streaming distribution, including the Emmys’ move to Prime Video and DAZN’s local sports partnerships alongside traditional television. Exclusivity can bring more money, but pricing and access affect how many fans can watch. A 24-team playoff could be good for college football if it improves competition, preserves school control, makes financial sense, and remains easy to watch. The division of revenue among conferences, schools, and athletes matters as much as the size of the bracket.

(Season 8, Episode 40).

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 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.

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 who could profit from a 24-team College Football Playoff (CFP) and what expansion could mean for competition, revenue, school control, athletes, and fans.

A 24-team playoff could be good for college football if it improves competition, preserves school control, makes financial sense, and remains easy to watch.

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

~

Having attended the “Red River Rivalry” game over the weekend at the Cotton Bowl during the State Fair of Texas in Dallas, the author found it abundantly clear that football is a big deal in the Lone Star State and among the power conferences. It is also fundamentally true that college football is a big business. What is unclear is how college athletics will change with expansion, realignment, NIL, and future television contracts.

It is fitting that prior to attending the Red River Rivalry game, the author moderated a panel on “NIL at Five” during the American Bar Association’s Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries conference in Atlanta, Georgia. NIL is also big business, and it adds to a growing sports business landscape that goes beyond endorsement deals to include revenue sharing incorporated into athletic department budgets, payments to players, scholarships, and benefits. One idea to accommodate the changing college sports landscape would be to create a larger playoff, growing from twelve to twenty-four teams. It could increase competition, revenue, and viewership opportunities for college football.

The College Football Playoff (CFP) is considering a move from 12 to 24 teams. Its exclusive negotiating window with ESPN ended October 9, but discussions continue, and no expansion decision has been announced. There are some good reasons why that expansion should or should not take place.

For one, opportunities to compete for a championship increase with more teams. NIL deals and player movement through the transfer portal give college athletic programs more ways to improve their rosters with talent, while changes to the NCAA’s age-based, five-year eligibility framework also affect roster planning. Analysts and executives must consider whether a larger field would better reflect teams that become competitive over the course of a season (as opposed to an early-season ranking), while giving more schools a meaningful path to the playoff.

Second, with more games added to the playoff, consideration should be given to reducing the regular season by one game (see 12-game FBS regular season), while simultaneously limiting FBS teams to just one FCS game per season as a proposed scheduling restriction. This last point also goes back to increased competition for teams and adding to the strength of schedule. FCS schools could lose guarantee payments from FBS schools under such a restriction, but those schools should not want to get paid to lose 77-0, etc.

Third, revenue could increase with more playoff games. More playoff games could attract additional media rights revenue, advertising, sponsorship, fan experiences, and ticket revenue. Any gains would need to be weighed against added costs and revenue lost from a shorter regular season. Under this proposed approach, conference championships would also be played, but the schedule could include one fewer game at the beginning of the season or potentially two bye weeks to account for the added travel from conference realignment. The best players and, of course, the fans want to see the matchups between teams that rarely, if ever, play each other.

Fourth, as private equity enters college football, control must remain a top priority for programs. Regardless of revenue, schools must maintain institutional control. The Jeanie Buss–Lakers arrangement shows that ownership and decision-making authority are separate deal points. We need to apply that lesson to college athletic departments considering private capital: who controls budgets, commercial rights, and decisions affecting the school after an investor provides funding? Utah’s private equity deal, involving a separate entity that manages commercial operations, offers a college example.

Fifth, television and streaming distribution is changing, and college sports and live sports in general need to meet the consumer where the changes are occurring. For example, the Emmys are moving from broadcast television to Prime Video beginning in 2027, following a decline in this year’s audience. Their move raises a question for the playoff: does the greatest rights payment also bring the greatest reach? The Emmys will be free to watch on Prime Video, even without a subscription. There is something to be said about wider reach and less exclusivity when it comes to live sports and content in general. The dilemma is that exclusivity can mean more money, but potentially fewer viewers, depending on pricing and access.

Sports can offer a different path. DAZN is expanding its local streaming rights, while some team arrangements retain traditional television: the Magic have over-the-air partners, and the Spurs plan 22 over-the-air games. An expanded CFP should similarly seek both broad television exposure and streaming coverage.

Sixth and finally, there will need to be policies around how new revenue would be divided among conferences and schools, whether athletes would share in the value of additional games, and whether fans would face more costs or difficulty finding them. A 24-team playoff could be good for college football if it improves competition, preserves school control, makes financial sense, and remains easy to watch. A larger bracket alone does not guarantee those results.

~

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 California’s challenge to the Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger was worth the delay.  A federal court temporarily halted the deal before approving a settlement with twelve states.  The question is whether the challenge helped Hollywood or held back two legacy companies seeking the scale to compete.

Jeremy compares the merger with Disney’s acquisition of Fox, including the difference between a deal’s price and the revenue of the combined company.  He discusses the regional sports networks Disney was required to sell, the size of Disney today, and the competition Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery face from larger media and streaming companies.

California has already lost production spending to other locations.  Jeremy considers what the settlement secured for workers and domestic film production, and whether the state could have obtained those commitments without a prolonged delay.  The episode examines what California must do to keep entertainment jobs and business in the state.  

(Season 8, Episode 39).

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 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.

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 California’s challenge to the Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger secured enough for Hollywood to justify the delay.

It may have been better to usher the deal through sooner while securing deal points that benefit the state and its residents.

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

~

A federal judge’s approval of the settlement on September 30, 2026, has cleared the way for Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery to complete their merger. A previous column examined the business case for combining the companies, while another questioned California’s resistance in a changing media market. The September 30 approval brings a more immediate question: were the commitments California secured for Hollywood worth the delay, or could they have been negotiated sooner?

First, we must remember that jobs at any particular company are not guaranteed and companies are not products or services of the state, government, or political officials. Directors and officers of public companies owe fiduciary duties to their corporations and shareholders, and all employers must follow labor and other laws. Otherwise, these are free enterprises. Where antitrust is concerned, governments can challenge a merger that may substantially lessen competition. Companies are otherwise free to move and change their structures as they see fit. This is why states that do very well financially have welcomed business as opposed to forcing companies to leave through high taxes and overregulation.

Second, the federal government allowed the Disney-Fox deal to proceed in 2018, but only after challenging it and requiring divestitures. Disney’s $71.3 billion acquisition of Fox assets required the sale of 22 regional sports networks, while Paramount’s deal values Warner Bros. Discovery at $110 billion. Although the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery price tag is larger, the combined business is smaller by revenue: $66.1 billion for 2025 compared with approximately $81.5 billion for Disney-Fox in 2018. The regional sports networks accounted for only $4.3 billion of the Disney-Fox figure, leaving $77.2 billion after their removal. Adjusted for inflation, the full Disney-Fox figure is approximately $104.5 billion in 2025 dollars, nearly $40 billion more than Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery combined. Disney itself reported $94.4 billion in 2025 revenue. The figures measure overall company size rather than competition in each market, but deal value and the size of the resulting company are different questions. Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery also do not combine competing regional sports networks as Disney and Fox would have. Both deals reflect the same changing dynamic. Netflix, Disney, and Amazon are formidable competitors in streaming. Paramount+ and HBO Max together would have a better chance to compete at scale. In many ways, the combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery reorders the power structure and allows two legacy companies to compete on a grander scale once again.

Third, the opposition endeavor caused delay and uncertainty even though the case ultimately settled. The federal court’s July 20 ruling found serious antitrust questions at the temporary restraining order stage, including the companies’ projected 27% combined share of wide-release theatrical distribution. That was an interim finding, not a final ruling that the merger was unlawful. By comparison, a Writers Guild submission to the Justice Department put Disney and Fox at 22% and 13% of U.S. and Canadian box-office receipts in 2017, or 35% combined. The 2017 box-office figure and the projected 2026 wide-release distribution figure measure different things, but theatrical concentration was a concern in both deals. The federal remedy in Disney-Fox focused on 22 regional sports networks. Litigation also has costs, although the settlement’s cap of $40 million on reimbursement of the 12 states’ legal and expert expenses does not tell us what taxpayers actually spent. Knowing the history of the Disney-Fox merger and the current political climate, the Attorney General might have been better off negotiating deal points that benefit California residents sooner, instead of fighting to stop a deal that ultimately went forward.

Fourth, there is serious debate around whether the delay actually helped deliver deal points for the State of California, its residents, or the State’s coffers. The Disney-Fox settlement required the sale of 22 regional sports networks. Here, Skydance had already announced plans for at least 30 theatrical films a year, a 45-day theatrical window, and continued investment in both studios. Still, the court-approved settlement goes slightly further: it requires two (2) more films a year (32 total) in years three through five, at least $1.5 billion in additional U.S. production over five years compared with the companies’ combined 2025 spending, $47.5 million for workforce training and arts programs, and $25 million for an independent film fund. It also requires the company to keep the Paramount and Warner studio lots open and provides for monitoring and penalties. The public record does not establish whether the company would have taken the same actions voluntarily, or whether these terms could have been negotiated sooner. That is the question when deciding whether the delay was worthwhile.

In the end, states must stay competitive to attract business. Utopia does not exist on earth and, if it did, it would not exist in a vacuum. Jobs and enterprise are not guaranteed. A person can lose a job as quickly as a company leaves. Under the settlement, Skydance has agreed not to close or sell the Paramount and Warner Bros. California studio lots during the five-year commitment period, but arguably the state has weakened its efforts to fight for business and is instead focused on fighting companies that do not capitulate to high taxes and overregulation. California has already lost ground: IRS migration data show a net $11.9 billion in annual adjusted gross income associated with residents who moved between 2022 and 2023, while the California Film Commission estimates $1.6 billion in potential production spending was lost to other locations from 2020 to 2024. Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Texas, and In-N-Out committed $125.5 million to a Tennessee regional office, although both companies continue to operate in California. The record does not show that a prolonged challenge was necessary to keep these studios in California. It may have been better to usher the deal through sooner while securing deal points that benefit the state and its residents.

~

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.

Jeremy M. Evans, CEO and Managing Attorney of California Sports Lawyer®, will speak on the panel “The Future of Sports AI: Building Toward LA28” during LA Tech Week 2026 in Los Angeles.

Presented by Sunstone Management and Pepperdine Graziadio Business School, the event will explore how artificial intelligence is changing athlete performance, fan experiences, sports media, and global engagement as Los Angeles builds toward 2028. The afternoon will also feature SportsTech founder pitches and networking.

Panelists

• Sean Devereaux — Community Engagement Officer, City of Long Beach
• Valtteri (Val) Salomäki — Co-Founder and CEO, EDGE Sound Research
• Jeremy M. Evans — CEO and Managing Attorney, California Sports Lawyer®
• Greg Manly — Technology Sales Consultant, TriNet; Investor Relations Manager, Startup Grind

Moderator

• Jennifer Huang — Director of Marketing and Communications, Sunstone Management

Event Details

• Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2026
• Event time: 2:00 - 5:00 PM
• Panel discussion and audience Q&A: 2:30 PM
• Location: Los Angeles, California; full location provided upon RSVP
• Presented by: Sunstone Management & Pepperdine Graziadio Business School
• Sponsored by: TriNet

Event link: View the event details and RSVP.

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.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines why companies continue developing more capable artificial intelligence systems even as warnings about catastrophic risks grow louder.  AI is already part of daily life, and its use is increasing.  The challenge is to evaluate warnings against evidence while considering the opportunities that innovation can create.

Jeremy discusses the difference between a warning and a credible risk, including what happens when incorrect AI results go unchecked.  The episode explores business incentives, global competition, human oversight, and the concern that relying too heavily on AI could weaken creativity and the value of work.  AI can be a thought partner, but humans must remain the thought leaders.

The discussion also considers independent oversight, testing and disclosure, intellectual property accountability, and when deployment should pause.  AI can make work more efficient and create jobs and opportunities, but its future depends on sound policy, responsible practices, and human control.  

(Season 8, Episode 38).

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 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.

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 warnings that AI could pose a catastrophic threat and argues that human leadership, independent oversight, and evidence should guide innovation as companies race to build more capable systems.

Once humans stop thinking, strategizing, and innovating, that is where any society will fail regardless of whether AI is the catalyst.

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

~

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is a part of our daily lives. Even if you despise AI, it has an impact on your life either directly through use of applications like streaming music or television choices or indirectly when others you interact with have used a generative AI platform to make a decision or to act as a thought partner. Either way, humans have interacted with AI and its use and acceptance are increasing.

More recently, there has been some backlash against the exponential growth of AI companies and the increasing use of generative AI by humans. There have been calls to slow the development of advanced AI systems and to regulate them. Safety concerns have also been raised, not to mention issues with the creative nature of being human and how AI has the potential to take away human innovation.

While some of the concerns about AI are valid, an Armageddon approach suggesting that AI will bring an end to the world is not the answer. Cruise ship designer John McNeece once famously said, “There is a problem trying to figure out what people want by canvassing them. I mean, if Henry Ford canvassed people on whether or not he should build a motor car, they’d probably tell him what they really wanted was a faster horse.” A logical, systematic approach, with an eye towards the historical record, lessons learned, and future opportunities is more beneficial. Often with innovation, it takes time for regulation and evidence from experiences to develop a pathway to sustainability with technology.

Recent warnings about advanced AI concern the possibility of losing human control over increasingly capable systems, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Those claims deserve to be tested against evidence and concrete safeguards, even if one disagrees with a doomsday conclusion.

The warnings and credible risk of AI are not necessarily the same. A warning with AI is that it can give incorrect answers. The incorrect answer warning becomes a credible risk when it is left unchecked. There is however a three-pronged approach to using AI, which includes (1) checking your inputs (prompts), (2) checking your outputs (results), and (3) buying the paid version of the generative AI platform you are using. In other words, you must have human involvement and oversight in AI use and policy.

There are also concerns with hallucinations, the gap between those who use AI and those who do not, and the fear that humans will begin to rely on AI to the point where people are no longer creative or want to work or possibly engage with people. One major concern with Elon Musk’s projection that AI will make work optional with universal high income is that work is good for mankind. Work is what brings value, change, and experience. Work is a distinguishing factor, it provides merit, and honestly it keeps people busy and occupied in the healthy sense of avoiding the devil’s playground of an idle workshop. This is where author Geoff Woods’s principle that AI should be a thought partner is important, while distinguishing humans as the thought leader.

Once humans stop thinking, strategizing, and innovating, that is where any society will fail regardless of whether AI is the catalyst. In other words, humans must balance the business incentives of creating AI with policies and best practices. Global competition for AI is growing and the argument is that the country that develops the best AI will control the future economy. Profit also means good governance in planning to make the product or service, earn revenue, and spend or invest that profit for future growth. Companies still compete for customers, capital, and strategic advantage even while their leaders raise safety concerns. The question is whether voluntary safeguards can withstand that pressure.

Safety measures include independent oversight of AI, human control and a bill of rights protecting and ensuring human leadership, accountability to platforms for use of intellectual property, and personal responsibility of humans. Independent oversight should specify what is tested, what results must be disclosed, and when deployment must pause. If policies can be made to address the aforementioned, AI will have a significant and successful future. If policies and best practices are ignored, we are in for a future we would have created ourselves by a lack of policy creation and enforcement. We keep building AI because it can make work more efficient, create new jobs and opportunities, and give people more time to think, strategize, and innovate, but that future requires sound policy, responsible practices, and human control.

~

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 why free television may win the streaming wars. Streaming originally promised lower prices, fewer advertisements, greater consumer control, and easier access to entertainment. Multiple subscriptions, increasing prices, advertising tiers, and fragmented content have gradually recreated many of the disadvantages associated with cable television.

Jeremy discusses how free ad-supported streaming television provides scheduled channels and on-demand programming without requiring another monthly subscription. The episode explores services including Samsung TV Plus, Pluto TV, Tubi, and The Roku Channel, along with the addition of Front Office Sports Tonight to Samsung TV Plus. Additional topics include subscription fatigue, the cost of streaming compared with cable, the separate cost and broader uses of internet service, sports programming, content discovery, advertising revenue, audience data, and privacy.

As entertainment, media, sports, advertising, technology, and law continue converging, the future of television will likely involve a hybrid model combining paid subscriptions, transactional purchases, traditional broadcasting, and free ad-supported platforms. Success will depend on legal and business frameworks addressing content licensing, advertising inventory, audience measurement, data collection, privacy, exclusivity, territorial restrictions, intellectual property, and distribution rights. The streaming wars may ultimately be won by the platforms that give audiences the easiest access and most compelling reasons to watch. 

(Season 8, Episode 37).

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 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.

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 how free ad-supported television could challenge subscription streaming by offering audiences easier access, familiar programming, and lower costs.

The streaming wars may not be won by the streaming platform with the most subscribers. They will be won by the streaming platform that gives audiences the easiest ways and most compelling reasons to watch.

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

~

Streaming fatigue is a concern for many consumers. People are paying too much money for too many platforms to watch the content they want. Finding that content and determining which platform carries it have also become exhausting.

However, an old friend, free television with traditional commercial breaks, has become more popular. It is similar to free, advertising-supported streaming music. Consumers seem to accept commercial breaks if that means paying less.

If we take a look back at the beginning of streaming as an offering, streaming originally offered lower prices, fewer advertisements, and greater consumer control. However, multiple subscriptions, price increases, advertising tiers, and fragmented content have gradually recreated many of cable television’s disadvantages. When streaming becomes as difficult as cable, consumers tend to lean back into paying less for a familiar product.

Free, advertising-supported streaming television, commonly called “FAST”, delivers scheduled channels and on-demand programming without another monthly subscription. Services including Samsung TV Plus, Pluto TV, Tubi, and The Roku Channel combine the familiarity of television with streaming distribution. Audiences receive content without paying a platform subscription fee, while platforms receive advertising revenue and valuable viewing data. The model succeeds when the advertising burden remains reasonable and privacy practices are transparent.

Sports news, highlights, secondary competitions, shoulder programming, and selected live events can attract habitual viewing to keep people coming back. The recent addition of Front Office Sports Tonight to Samsung TV Plus illustrates how sports-business programming can reach viewers nationally without requiring another subscription. To preserve the value of subscription based models, many premium films, series, and major live events remain behind subscription or transactional paywalls. Free television, however, may become the primary vehicle for discovery, mass reach, library programming, news, and everyday viewing.

Streaming remains less expensive than cable when consumers subscribe to only a few services, but the cost advantage begins to disappear as more platforms are added. According to Deloitte’s 2026 Digital Media Trends, the average subscribing household spends $69 per month on streaming video services, while live television services such as YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV cost approximately $83 to $90 per month before Netflix, Max, Peacock, and other subscriptions are added. A collection of the major ad-free streaming services can cost more than $137 per month, placing it near the price of many traditional cable packages after common fees.

Internet service must be considered separately because streaming requires a broadband connection, although assigning the entire internet bill to entertainment would be misleading when households also use that connection for work, education, communication, shopping, and other purposes. The same distinction applied when cable, internet, and landline telephone service were sold together because the bundled bill included three separate household services, not simply the cost of watching television. Consumers comparing the options should therefore examine television charges, equipment costs, promotional rates, and additional fees separately, while using the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband consumer labels to evaluate the price and terms of internet service.

The future of watching content on television or mobile phones is likely a hybrid model. People will go where the best content is located. From a legal perspective, agreements must address content licensing, advertising inventory, audience measurement, data collection, exclusivity, territorial restrictions, intellectual property, and distribution rights. The streaming wars may not be won by the streaming platform with the most subscribers. They will be won by the streaming platform that gives audiences the easiest ways and most compelling reasons to watch.

~

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 what happens when audiences become investors in films and entertainment companies. Through investment models offered by companies such as Legion M, fans may purchase company stock, participate in a film fund, or invest directly in individual projects when those opportunities are available. These investments can deepen the relationship between audiences and entertainment while creating financial opportunities, securities law obligations, and the risk of loss.

Jeremy discusses how fan investment differs from traditional film financing and donation based or reward based crowdfunding. The episode also explores Legion M’s involvement in the theatrical release of Coyote vs. Acme, the use of audience capital to support the distribution of completed films, and the importance of disclosures, audit rights, recoupment provisions, revenue definitions, and payment waterfalls. Additional topics include creative control, fan ambassadors, access to financing, and how creators may reach audiences before securing representation while still benefiting from representation once opportunities emerge.

As entertainment, finance, technology, intellectual property, and law continue converging, fan investment may complement traditional financing and create new paths for filmmakers and audiences. Responsible growth will require compliance with securities laws, clear explanations of investment risks, transparent offering terms, and realistic expectations about financial returns and creative authority. Fan financing can lower the barrier to entry for creating entertainment while allowing experienced representatives, producers, distributors, and other professionals to add value as projects develop. 

(Season 8, Episode 36).

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 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.

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.