Throughout this year's Little League World Series, I haven't been able to stop thinking about how awkward the 20-team format is. They only expanded the field in 2022, so it seems unlikely that they'll expand it again anytime soon. But, it does seem inevitable that they'll eventually go to 24. Not only because it's not as awkward, but because it'd create a better experience all around.
The Little League World Series uses a double elimination format. As a result, four teams that lose their opening game only play twice. Prior to the 2022 expansion, every team was guaranteed three games. The teams that started 0-2 would face each other in an international crossover game to conclude their tournament. With the extra games required to accommodate four additional teams, though, those consolation games had to go away. Which means some teams will go all the way to Williamsport to play just two games. Ideally, they'd be able to go back to guaranteeing everybody a third.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, teams that have to go through the loser's bracket play practically every day. After losing their first games, the teams from Ohio and Japan won four in five days. Credit to them for winning each of those elimination games to stay alive. And, as they always say, you don't want to drop into the loser's bracket in a double elimination tournament. It's one of the pitfalls of the format. But, still, that's a lot. Both for the teams playing every day and the teams sitting around while they play.
Then there are the regions. On the U.S. side, the breakdown isn't much of an issue. There are 53 teams (California and Texas both have two, and Washington, D.C., also has a representative) divided into 10 regions. The regions are all geographic based. Most have four teams, two have five, one has seven and the two largest regions (Southeast and Midwest) include eight states.
Internationally, however, what regions are represented depends on the year. Japan, Canada, Australia and Mexico send their national champions to Williamsport each year. The Europe-Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean regions are also consistent. Those last two teams, though, come from a rotation of Curacao, Cuba, Panama and Puerto Rico. Two go each year, the other two participate in their respective regional tournament. Because that makes total sense!
If the Little League World Series were to go to 24 teams by adding two on each side, all four of those places would be able to send a representative to Williamsport every year. It wouldn't matter if it was their turn in the rotation. The international field would include the four multi-country regions, the four existing single-country regions, and the four regions that rotate (which would instead become permanent). No more rotation or wondering who's got a birth and who doesn't between Curacao, Cuba, Panama and Puerto Rico. (It's even possible that all four could conceivably qualify in the same year if Panama were to win the Latin America region and the one that doesn't have an auto bid among the other three wins the Caribbean region.)
Expanding the field to 24 teams would obviously create two additional regions in the U.S., as well. Which would eliminate the two eight-team regions, which have never felt fair anyway when so many regions are literally half that size. My first thought would be to create a "Gulf States" Region with Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas, reducing the Southeast Region to six (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee) in the process. Likewise, I'd take some teams out of the Midwest Region and create the "Heartland" with Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska.
That would shift some other states around, as well, but all 12 regions would still make sense geographically and have roughly the same number of teams in them. Half of the regions wouldn't be affected at all, in fact (*-unchanged). My U.S. regions would be New England* (Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire), Metro* (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island), Mid-Atlantic* (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington DC), Southeast (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia), Gulf States (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas), Great Lakes (West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana), Midwest (Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota), Heartland (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Southwest (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas East, Texas West), Mountain* (Colorado, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada), Northwest* (Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho), West* (Northern California, Southern California, Arizona, Hawaii).
An expansion to 24 teams would create another benefit. Instead of double elimination, they could go to a group play format. This isn't an entirely new idea, either. The Little League World Series had four-team pools until 2010, when it went to double elimination. So, even though nobody who's young enough to be playing in the Little League World Series had been born yet the last time they did it, it's not an entirely foreign concept.
By breaking each bracket into three groups of four, all teams would be guaranteed three games. Nobody would play more than six total, either. After the group stage, three group winners and a top second-place team move on to the U.S./International semifinals. So, you'd have 16 of the 24 teams playing three games, four that lose in their respective semifinals four, and the four that make it to the U.S./International Championship Games six. You know how many the team that goes into their half of the bracket's Championship Game plays currently? Five.
Going to groups would avoid some of the problems that the double elimination bracket has created, too. Because of the 10 teams on each side, eight will potentially have to play an extra game if they advance through the winner's bracket. With that determined entirely by blind luck of the draw. Ditto with the matchups. You might be the second-best team on your side, but play the best team in your first game and face the tremendous disadvantage of dropping into the loser's bracket.
Little League could seed the draw if it so desired based on the results of the previous year (with the two finalists kept from being in the same group and the rest of the teams drawn at random). Or, since the teams that qualify are so different every year, they could continue to use the completely blind draw. There's really no right answer. Either method would work, and neither would cause any controversy. And the top second-place team still making the semifinals creates a buffer should the two best teams end up in the same group. (They'd need to figure out a tiebreaker system, but that seems easy enough to do.)
Schedule-wise, there would be options and flexibility, too. Keeping the current schedule of two games per day would give each team two days off between contests. Or, they could increase it to three games per day on each field, which would push the start from midweek to Friday. Or, some hybrid combination that would allow them to be done with plenty of time to spare on the day of the Little League Classic. No matter how they set it up, the total number of games would increase from 38 to 44.
Whether there are any plans to expand the Little League World Series or change the format, I don't know. My guess is there isn't since the 20-team field is still fairly new. Even though it might not be imminent, though, I do think it's only a matter of time before they go to 24 teams (12 in each bracket). And, when that day comes, they might want to consider dropping the double elimination and going back to group play instead.
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
A Little (League) Expansion Talk
Monday, August 24, 2026
I Miss Physical Tickets
In a lot of ways, the current method is much easier. You get your tickets almost instantaneously, and all you need to do is activate them. No need to wait for them to come in the mail or having to pick them up at Will Call. And you can easily transfer them, so you can just send it to whoever you're going to the game with. You don't need to travel together or wait for each other at a designated meeting spot. So, digital tickets aren't all bad. Especially since that's the way things were headed even before COVID.
Still, though, physical tickets being a thing of the past makes you lament those days. Ticket stubs are mementos. How many people save them, then have memories of that event instantly come up when they see them? Especially for major events, the ticket stub was proof of your once-in-a-lifetime experience. They were usually works of art, too. Remember how beautiful Super Bowl tickets once were?
Graphic designers understand this nostalgia and have turned it into a key feature of their business. Those beautiful pieces of art have limitations, though. Most aren't authorized to use team and event logos. So, they have to make do without. The images they create are still worthwhile keepsakes, but, because of those limitations, it can still feel like they're missing something.
There's something about the physical ticket that can't be replicated by a screenshot. And it's definitely one of the things you miss by not having that option. There are so many events I've attended over the past six years where I would've loved to have a physical ticket (*cough* 2024 World Series *cough*), but no such luck. Until now.
My ticket for the Norway-Senegal game just arrived (yes, it was two months after the game...clearly it wasn't used for admission), and I'm so glad I ordered one! They made it look just like it could've been used to get into the game, but since it wasn't, the condition was obviously much better. Better than that, it came in a FIFA World Cup 26 envelope and you had the option to personalize it, which I, of course, did. The result was something that I can keep as a permanent reminder that I was at the Norway-Senegal World Cup game (just as I used to be able to do with ticket stubs in the past).
Getting physical tickets for those two games only made me realize how much I miss getting them for events. Especially big ones. I spent six days in Eugene for the 2022 World Athletics Championships. All I have to commemorate that is a ton of photos and screenshots of my "ticket" for each day. Meanwhile, I still have all of my individual tickets from the 2002 Olympics and 2015 Pan Am Games. Guess which I prefer.
I can still remember Christmas 2013, when my sister had my then two-year-old nephew hand me and his dad tickets to the Rangers-Islanders Stadium Series game at Yankee Stadium. The tickets were gorgeous, too! Both team names and logos with the Stadium Series logo. Then I remember how disappointed I was when my ticket for the 2018 Winter Classic arrived and it was just a generic Ticketmaster ticket. Which is still better than what I got for the 2024 Stadium Series at MetLife Stadium. Which, again, was just a screenshot.
It isn't just sporting events, either. I've found ticket stubs to concerts and Broadway shows and even museum tours tucked away in my apartment. Many of them are just generic Ticketmaster stubs. That doesn't matter. Finding the stub either brings back the memories or just makes you think, "Oh yeah, I did go to that!" You don't get the same feeling from posting your pictures live while you're there, then not thinking about the event again until those pictures pop up again on your social media feed.
LA28 will be getting in on the act with physical tickets. As I was completing my order, there was a check box asking if I wanted to add "Commemorate28" tickets. Whether I get one for every LA28 event I end up attending (however many that is) remains to be seen. But, at the very least, I'll have one for the men's soccer doubleheader at Etihad Park (sorry, "New York Stadium"...not to be confused with "New York New Jersey Stadium") the day before the Opening Ceremony.
Credit to event organizers for giving people that option. Sure, they see it as an extra source of revenue. There's no doubt that's a big reason behind it. But, if people want it and are willing to pay for it, why not? Not everybody who attends the game will get or want one, but those who want to remember the experience with a commemorative ticket stub can. It really is a sound compromise.
If only they'd made that realization and come up with that compromise sooner. Then you wouldn't have had that period of a few years where even the idea of a physical ticket stub was a foreign concept. Fortunately, the actual ticket is becoming a thing again. Even if you have to pay extra for it, so what? At least it's an option if you want tangible evidence to remind you that you were there and experienced it live. Because there's something about that physical reminder that can't be replicated. Even if digital tickets are easier.
Saturday, August 22, 2026
From Ridiculous to Absurd
NCAA eligibility cases have been in the news a lot over the past few years. They generally follow the same script. Somebody doesn't like the NCAA's ruling, they find a friendly judge, that judge takes their side and grants that person an injunction, which the NCAA then appeals. Lather, rinse, repeat. It doesn't even matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is. A judge will rule against the NCAA no matter what, even if they're the only one (other than that athlete) who doesn't think their ruling is insane!
Of course, the Protect College Sports Act getting passed by the Senate would go a long way towards ending many of these lawsuits. That's one of the main purposes of the legislation! State judges are making these rulings, yet applying them nationwide. How does that make any sense?! Which is why a federal framework is necessary. To supersede 50 different state interpretations.
But more on the Protect College Sports Act once the Senate begins discussions and hopefully gets the bill passed. If you needed any more proof that the Protect College Sports Act has to get passed yesterday, the latest eligibility ruling is ample evidence. Because, once again, the plaintiffs have found a judge to take their side despite the fact that no one else agrees with them and the general reaction is that the judge's opinion is 100 percent wrong.
The latest absurd anti-NCAA ruling came to us from a judge in Louisiana. This judge granted a temporary restraining order to a group of 30 athletes seeking a fifth year of collegiate eligibility. Among those 30 athletes are 16 football players. A few of those football players appeared in NFL training camps. Three of them ARE ON ACTIVE NFL ROSTERS! Yet this idiot judge thinks they should be allowed to return to college AFTER PLAYING IN THE NFL!
"Oh, they were only on training camp rosters. They never played in an actual NFL regular season game." Doesn't matter! Once you sign with and play for a professional team in any capacity, that's it! That used to be such an easy, straightforward thing to understand. You play in college, then go pro. Not the other way around. And certainly not back and forth.
In a separate but related case, R.J. Luis Jr. is also currently engaged in a suit regarding his eligibility for the 2026-27 season. Luis, the 2024-25 Big East Player of the Year at St. John's, recently signed with LSU as a transfer for 2026-27. He hasn't played in more than a year since he signed a two-way contract with the Utah Jazz after not being selected in the 2025 NBA Draft. Because of that NBA contract, Luis currently isn't eligible to play for LSU (and shouldn't be!). But since he "only" played in the G-League, he "should" be allowed to go back to college. (At least that appears to be his thought process.)
Luis is building his argument around the case surrounding Alabama's Charles Bediako last season. Bediako, who played 82 G-League games across three seasons, got a TRO from a judge who was conveniently located in Tuscaloosa that allowed him to play for the Crimson Tide. If that sounds absurd, that's because it is! Bediako played in a grand total of five games for Alabama before common sense prevailed and the TRO was reversed.
It's important to note here that SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey wrote the court to make his opposition known in the Bediako case. He's just as opposed to the idea of Luis playing at LSU. This is the SEC commissioner openly going against two conference schools on this issue. That should tell you all you need to know. And you can probably guess how Sankey, who's opinion has remained consistent, feels about this latest ruling.
Sankey was very outspoken in his criticism. He wrote the judge asking him to uphold the NCAA rules that prevent former professional athletes from returning to college, noting how it "fuels disruption" and undermines the "fundamental principles" of college sports. Sankey also brought up how all of these eligibility cases (not just this most recent one) directly impact high school students coming into college sports, only to have opportunities unfairly taken away from them by these returning players. NCAA rules present structure and stability that all of these court cases threaten to upend.
His filing was in response to the Luis case, but it could just as easily apply to the NFL guys seeking a return to college (which they wouldn't even be attempting if they weren't marginal pros who are either fighting to make rosters or already got cut): "Permitting former professional athletes to return to competition creates a competitive disadvantage and fundamental unfairness for current student-athletes who have not pursued a professional sports career but instead have maintained their commitment to the collegiate athletics model." Sankey also stressed that these judges are completely missing the point with their eligibility rulings. The whole point of college athletics is that these are student-athletes, a point that continually gets lost. "The rules align the time permitted for college athletics with the pursuit of an undergraduate education and further the important purpose of preserving opportunities for future student-athletes to participate in college sports."
College sports don't exist as a backup plan for guys who are good at football, but not quite good enough to make it in the NFL. Once you go pro, that's it. There's no going back. The TRO does state that those former pro athletes must terminate their contract and return any money they received. But, whether you pay it back or not, if you've been paid to play a sport, you're a professional athlete. It doesn't matter if you only played in training camp and the preseason, either. Even if you don't make the regular season roster, you still got paid to play.
Yes, college athletes also get paid now. Between NIL deals and direct revenue sharing payments from their schools, some college athletes are making as much as seven figures a year. So, the definition of "amateur" has definitely become murkier. But it's still the important distinction that separates the NCAA from professional leagues. You play in college with the hopes of going pro. Not the other way around.
My question is this...if not for the knowledge that they would almost certainly find a judge who'd rule in their favor, would these players have even tried this? And what does that say to the NFL teams they're allegedly trying to make? These guys are literally ON NFL ROSTERS right now, and they're talking about trying to go back and play another season of college football! That should make the decision on whether or not to cut them easier! (It's also not like baseball where you can reenter the draft if you don't sign. Once you sign, that's it. You can't get drafted again. That's true in all sports.)
Somehow, these rulings get more and more asinine. It's not the same level as Brendan Sorsby, but, let's face it, that's such a high/low bar to clear that it might not be possible to do so. This one is right up there, though. Especially since everybody realizes how dumb it is and the ruling will almost certainly get overturned after the NCAA appeals. Because the NCAA rule, in this case, is common sense. Or at least it should be.
Thursday, August 20, 2026
Throwing the Flag On NFL Olympic Participation
The Flag Football World Championships concluded over the weekend in Germany, and the first two teams joining the U.S. in the 2028 Olympic tournament have been determined. On the men's side, it's Canada and Italy who've qualified, while the women's teams from Canada and Mexico also clinched their spots. That doesn't exactly scream "geographic diversity," but I digress. The sport's Olympic debut will also feature some non-North American teams, as well, although those final three participants won't be known until a few weeks before the Games.
Ever since it was announced that flag football had been added as an optional sport for LA, the speculation has been about whether NFL players will participate. The Olympics are during NFL training camps (which is not a coincidence), so the timing could theoretically work out. There are several active NFL players who've expressed interest, too. And Roger Goodell also seems to be on board with the idea. The commissioner being OK with it doesn't make the idea good, though.
It's obvious why Olympic organizers want NFL players in the flag football tournament. It's the same reason why they want MLB players in the baseball tournament. They're the best players in the world and would put those Olympic tournaments on the same level as basketball and hockey (and, to a lesser extent, women's soccer). They'd also be a bigger draw both in terms of TV ratings and ticket sales than random people the average Olympic-watching fan has never heard of.
I'm fully on board with NHL, NBA and WNBA players representing their countries in the Olympics. So, you'd think I'd be on board with MLB and NFL players getting that opportunity, too. With MLB, I'm lukewarm to the idea. I don't totally hate it. But I'm also not sure how it would work without seriously disrupting the season, which is why I'm more of a "No." With flag football, however, I'm a hard "No" on NFL guys and that's not changing.
"Why," you might ask? Well, first and foremost, flag football and tackle football aren't the same sport. Are they similar? Of course! But they're not interchangeable, and you can't act as if they are. (Are baseball and football the same sport?) It's really kind of an insult to the sport of flag football to even suggest that you can just go back and forth like that. (Although, yes, I absolutely acknowledge the exceptional skill level required to play both regular and flag football.)
My biggest reason for being opposed, though, is that it would be a slap in the face to those who actually play football year-round. These are the players who've put in their blood, sweat and tears into their sport, which has finally earned Olympic recognition (potentially only for this one Olympics). Only to have their opportunity potentially taken away because millionaire NFL players have decided they want to go. You put in all the work, made a career in the sport, only to get cast aside at the last minute for someone who doesn't even really play the sport. How is that at all right or fair?
Let's not kid ourselves, either. The only reason the NFL players even care is because (A) it's the Olympics and (B) it's in LA. It's selfish. Plain and simple. Do I blame them for wanting to take this Olympic opportunity and run with it? No. But does that mean I think it's right for them to take that opportunity from somebody who was actually responsible for getting flag football to this point? Also no.
There's another big difference between flag football and sports like basketball or hockey or even baseball. Flag football has an actual full-time U.S. National Tema that competes year-round. It's similar to rugby sevens in that way. Basketball and hockey don't have a full-time National Team. The roster (and sometimes even the coaching staff) changes every tournament based on players' interest and availability. And, since those rosters are much more flexible, it's not nearly as disruptive to bring in NHL, NBA or WNBA players.
Another reason why I have a problem with this is because only one nation stands to benefit. The Olympic hockey and basketball tournaments feature NHL, NBA and WNBA players on practically every roster. So, every team is made better and it enhances the competition. Even in baseball, should Major Leaguers play, it'll be a mini-World Baseball Classic. They'll be on all six rosters. That wouldn't be the case in flag football, though. NFL players would be crashing the roster of one team and one team only. They'd essentially be ringers brought in specifically to help the U.S. win (because I guess the team that just won the World Championship and lost an international game for the first time in a decade during group play at Worlds isn't good enough to do that themselves).
Should it happen, it wouldn't be the first time we've seen something like this. The U.S. women's 3x3 basketball team featured WNBA players in both Tokyo and Paris. It wouldn't be a shock to see that happen again at the LA Games. Meanwhile, WNBA players participate in NO international 3x3 tournaments outside the Olympics. And, much like flag football and football, 5x5 basketball and 3x3 basketball aren't the same thing!
NBA players, however, don't participate in the men's 3x3 tournament at the Olympics. They exclusively play 5x5. The U.S. men's 3x3 team is made up of players (some of whom used to be in the NBA) who play 3x3 all year. So, why does the United States use WNBA players in women's 3x3, but not use NBA players in men's 3x3? (Although, some of the women at least do play 3x3 part of the year in Unrivaled.) It seems to me it should be both or neither. Frankly, I think it should be neither. For the same reasons I don't think NFL players should be in the Olympic flag tournament.
Then there's the training camp factor, which may not end up being that significant, but needs to be mentioned nonetheless. Flag football will take place during the first week of the Olympics, with the gold medal game on July 21. That was obviously done on purpose so that the Olympic tournament will be over before teams start training camp. And the owners have already passed a resolution allowing one player from each team to compete. So, they appear to be all-in, as well.
But, and here's my last point on this, what's in it for them (the NFL owners)? In hockey, the benefit is clear, and the owners were still resistant against the Olympics. For the NBA and WNBA, there's also an obvious benefit. And MLB clearly wants to ride the momentum of the World Baseball Classic, so it's understandable why they aren't opposed to seeing their players in LA. What would NFL owners get out of it, though? These NFL guys wouldn't continue playing flag football, and they wouldn't be promoting those players who actually do. So, what does either side get out of it other than the name recognition of two of the biggest brands in global sports (the NFL and the Olympics)?
Playing in the Olympics is the pinnacle of their career for so many athletes. For those who play flag football, LA 28 might be the one and only Olympics where they get that opportunity. It shouldn't be taken away from them. Certainly not by NFL guys who aren't trying to grow the sport. They only see that shiny gold medal and want it. Which isn't a good enough reason to tell actual flag football players that they need to give up their Olympic dream just so an NFL player can take his place.
Monday, August 17, 2026
What It's Really About
Last week, as I was reading the announcement about Russell Westbrook's retirement, something really struck me. It was a quote from his agent. Westbrook retired on the same day the Lakers were sold for $12.5 billion to former Disney CEO Bob Iger and the Donald Trump-adjacent Joshua Kushner (who I guess moved on to the NBA when the World Cup thing fell apart). The irony of that sale price was not lost on Westbrook's agent, who said: "Incredible. The Lakers sell for $12 billion, yet teams won't spend on older vets because of current CBA rules. Thank you, Union!"
That right there says all you need to know about the upcoming labor dispute in MLB. The owners insist Baseball "needs" a salary cap (which it does not). And there are plenty of fans who agree with them. Those fans, frankly, don't get it. Because the owners' insistence on a salary cap has nothing to do with competitive balance (as much as they claim it is). It's about controlling costs and bringing franchise values up.
The Lakers' sale price is the highest-ever for an NBA team. It makes them the second-most valuable franchise in all of sports, behind only the Dallas Cowboys. Seven of the 10 highest-value sports franchises are in the NFL. The other three are the Lakers, Warriors and Knicks. Among the top 50 are 30 of the 32 teams (with only the Saints and Bengals rated outside). The NBA accounts for another 12, while six of the remaining eight are either European soccer clubs or F1 giants.
Only two Major League Baseball teams--the Yankees and Dodgers--are included on that top 50 list of most valuable franchises, with the Cubs and Red Sox just outside. The Yankees are worth "only" $8.2 billion (which is tied with the Bears for 10th overall). Most MLB teams are in the $2-5 billion range, which is more comparable to the NHL than the NBA or NFL. That, in a nutshell, is why the owners are pushing so heavily for a salary cap. Because that's what'll bring their franchise values up into the range where they think they should be.
It's not really that hard to make the correlation. The other three leagues have a salary cap. MLB doesn't. Don't think the owners haven't noticed that. By having a salary cap, the NFL, NBA and NHL know the amount they're spending on player costs. By not having a cap, player costs in MLB are significantly higher. Which cuts into the owners' profits. Which lowers their franchise values. Thus, the insistence that MLB "needs" a cap.
Meanwhile, the Russell Westbrook quote tells you all you need to know about the NBA's cap. The Lakers are worth $12.5 billion, yet the salary cap prevents them from spending on veteran free agents. You can only have so much sympathy for the players since it's in the CBA, which means they agreed to it. But the point remains. The NBA's CBA is clearly making the owners richer at the expense of the players. Why would MLB players agree to something similar?
When I was at Wrigley, a guy behind me on the concourse, who's clearly on the owners' side in the lockout, said that he thought the players stood to make more money. I turned around and asked him if he seriously believed that. Because the reason why the players are so opposed to a salary cap should be just as obvious as they owners' desire for one. The players won't make more money under a salary cap. They'll make significantly less.
Let's say the players hypothetically did agree to a salary cap in the CBA negotiations (whenever they actually start). For the sake of making the math easier, let's say they set that salary cap at $200 million a season. (This year's average payroll is just under $178 million, so it'd probably be closer to that.) That would mean the owners are spending a maximum of $6 billion on player salaries. You know how much teams are spending on player salaries this season? Just under $6 billion! And the number I used is likely higher than a salary cap would ultimately be.
Which means the players, right off the bat, would be getting less. And that doesn't include any other provisions the owners would put in to benefit themselves and not the players. Not to mention the fact that MLB has guaranteed contracts, so teams would end up having to pay the guys they cut to get under the cap regardless. Is there room for players to give on things like deferred compensation? Sure. But would a salary cap benefit them in any way? Absolutely not.
Baseball's economic situation is far more complex than I'm making it out to be. And I'm not pretending I know all of the details (on either side). But the basics are really quite simple. The players like the current system not only because they benefit from it, but also because they know what they'll be giving up should they ever agree to a salary cap. Likewise, the owners want to change the system because it'll benefit them to do so. Especially if they were to get their salary cap. (You didn't get one 30 years ago and you ain't getting one now!)
You can look no further than the NBA, NHL and NFL for examples of what the MLBPA is desperate to avoid. What part of the CBA actually benefits the players in the three capped leagues? In the NFL, you've got dozens of veterans getting released every year so that their team can get under the salary cap. In the NBA, you have veteran free agents going unsigned because there are cheaper options elsewhere. And it was like pulling teeth for the NHL owners to agree to let their players participate in the Olympics (since there was nothing in it for them).
In each of the other three leagues, the players gave a lot to get a little. Major League Baseball owners have seen that and want the same. Major League Baseball players have seen that and want to make sure they don't end up in the same boat as their counterparts in the other sports. As a result, we're at an impasse. One side will eventually have to blink. Until that happens, though, no progress will be made.
But still, that quote by Russell Westbrook's agent says a lot. Because it sums up each side's position very succinctly. He spent 18 years playing in the NBA, so he knows as well as anybody how much the CBA is weighted heavily in the owners' favor. As is the NFL's CBA. That's why NFL and NBA franchises have become so valuable. Baseball owners see that and want it. They want their franchise values to rival that of the NBA (they know they're not catching the NFL).
While it's not an exact parallel, MLB and the NBA are close enough to draw similar conclusions. In both sports, it's a matter of millionaire players against billionaire owners. In an ideal world, the CBA makes both sides richer. But, let's be honest, neither side cares if the other gets richer as long as theirs does. Which is the real heart of the matter in MLB's upcoming labor fight.
Sunday, August 16, 2026
Causing Roster Chaos
As we begin the 2026-27 NCAA season, lawsuits surrounding the new 5-for-5 model have created roster uncertainty across the country. After several athletes in the Class of 2026 sued for eligibility this year, a Colorado judge granted a preliminary injunction that gave a blanket waiver to all 2026 graduates an extra year of eligibility. The NCAA appealed, which is yet to be heard. Meanwhile, the Fall season has already started. Clarity is very much needed, but doesn't appear to be coming anytime soon.
Depending on when the NCAA's appeal is heard and a final decision is made, there may be a massive influx of players who are suddenly available to schools. You'd have to figure some of them will be added to rosters, taking a roster spot away from somebody else. And, for any team that doesn't play a Spring sport, it'd be disruptive regardless of the timing. These teams are either already playing, already practicing or about to begin the season. Now you're talking about adding new players to the team? Talk about late in the game!
Dan Hurley, for one, is not a fan of the current situation. In fact, he finds it untenable. Hurley has made it clear that he won't be adding any players to his roster during the season, no matter what the result of the NCAA's appeal is. He went beyond that, though. Hurley made it a point to say how frustrated he is and criticized the effect it'll have on recruiting.
"Now you can screw up high school recruiting," he said. "You could screw up portal recruiting, not have a very good team, and now start plucking from a group of players in August and put together a team. It makes it tough. We did the best we could do in high school recruiting. Now you've got this selection of portal players. You put together the best team you can. You start practicing for the summer, and now let's unleash 80 players into the sport in the first week of August. I mean, we can't go on like this."
Hurley was also quick to note how incoming freshmen will be impacted, which is something not enough people are considering: "There are kids that are 17, 18 years old that potentially may lose out on opportunities. So, it's not victimless. At some point, you've got to care about the sport, especially if the sport has given you a lot. If you're a coach and the sport has given you a lot, it's like doing things to hurt the sport so that you can win a little bit more."
His view is certainly a cynical one. But there's no denying that Hurley has a point. The transfer portal has already created chaos and upended the entire recruiting process. Now you suddenly have the potential of all these players becoming available to join the roster after school has already started. Enough is enough.
And this is coming from someone who agrees with the Colorado judge. I think that those student-athletes who graduated in the Spring should be able to continue their careers this year should they so choose. But I also agree with Hurley. The summary judgment giving a blanket extra year of eligibility to every Class of 2026 graduate did take it a step too far. Because, as he noted, teams already had their rosters set.
It is worth noting that there were a few exceptions to the judge's ruling. In order to take advantage of the injunction, players would have needed to already be in the transfer portal when it opened in April. Otherwise, they'd need to return to their existing team (provided the coach still wanted them and there was a roster spot...and that they're enrolled in grad school). That affects several players who were rumored to be transferring should the injunction remain in place. It's also unclear whether players who entered the NBA Draft but weren't selected, like Texas Tech's Darrion Williams, will be allowed to return.
While Hurley was obviously only talking about basketball and how it effects UConn, his comments apply to all sports and all schools. Coaches made their rosters for this season and already did their recruiting, both among incoming freshmen and among transfers. School is about to start, and the season has literally already started in Fall sports. It's too late for Fall teams to make any changes at this point. So why should the other sports be able to?
Incoming freshmen, meanwhile, have been the group that was most impacted by the change in the transfer portal a few years ago. Suddenly, coaches went from recruiting freshmen to filling their roster with transfers. Why bring in 18- or 19-year-olds when you can get a 23-year-old who already has three years of college experience instead? Now, they stand to also lose roster spots to fifth-year seniors who may not have even been planning on coming back. And, don't forget, this is the group that was the most screwed over by the COVID year everyone was given. Just like they'll be the group most severely impacted by the 5-for-5 legislation.
None of that changes my support for the general idea of the 5-for-5 rule, which most agree is a good thing. However the lawsuits play out, it'll only apply to the Class of 2026. So, any freshmen who enroll in the Fall of 2027 will be the first to benefit from the 5-for-5 rule in two ways. They'll go into college knowing they have five years AND know they won't suddenly have to compete with a group of fifth-year players for roster spots. And, it'll certainly be nice to know that college athletes are between the ages of 18-24 without the 27-year-olds in their seventh year of eligibility at their fourth school who've turned the entire thing into a sham.
Of course, the 5-for-5 rule isn't the only piece of college sports legislation that was in the news this Summer. The Protect College Sports Act has already passed the House and is on the Senate's docket for when they return from recess in September. Federal legislation to regulate college sports is desperately needed, so here's hoping the Protect College Sports Act passes. And that would certainly go a long way towards clearing up some of the mess that the current system has created. But the Protect College Sports Act, assuming it passes, won't take effect until 2027-28 at the earliest. Which does nothing to help the current situation.
A swift resolution is really what was needed here. Once the 5-for-5 rule passed, the NCAA should've anticipated lawsuits. Likewise, the Colorado judge should've anticipated an appeal after making the ruling. That appeal needed to be heard and decided right away, though. Because all the wait's doing is creating more uncertainty and potentially causing more chaos once a final decision is made. Which is unfair to everybody.
Those Spring graduates may or may not get that fifth year of eligibility after all. New recruits may lose roster spots to those fifth-year players. Coaches have to build rosters not knowing who's available as a transfer, and may see competitors make a late addition or two that makes them significantly better. So, as Dan Hurley said, it can't continue like this. Because it's a mess right now.
Friday, August 14, 2026
Screwing South America
As FIFA President Gianni Infantino fights to save his job, one confederation was conspicuous for its silence. UEFA is firmly against Infantino and has the support of CONCACAF and the AFC. Africa, for the most part, is sticking with Infantino. But no one really knew where CONMEBOL, the South American federation, stood until a few days ago. CONMEBOL has his back, which could ultimately be Infantino's saving grace.
With only 10 members, CONMEBOL's support doesn't have as much bearing as UEFA's opposition (with its 55 members) in terms of sheer numbers. But, despite not having the numbers, CONMEBOL still has plenty of influence, seeing as its members include Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay. So, CONMEBOL having Infantino's back is not insignificant. Although, I must admit, it is a bit confusing. Because CONMEBOL is the confederation getting screwed the most by FIFA right now.
The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930. It was hoped/expected that the centennial World Cup in 2030 would also be held in South America. Instead, Spain, Portugal and Morocco were chosen as the primary hosts. However, FIFA threw CONMEBOL a bone by letting Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay host one game each before the remainder of the tournament moves to the other side of the Atlantic.
That move was calculated, though. Under FIFA rules, after a confederation hosts the World Cup, it must wait two cycles before it can bid again. So, Asia was ineligible for 2026 and 2030, and CONCACAF will be ineligible for 2030 and 2034. This provision makes both UEFA and Africa ineligible to host either the 2034 or 2038 World Cup. But, by having those three games in South America, that also counts as CONMEBOL hosting, thus making the confederation ineligible for 2034 and 2038, as well.
Since four of the six confederations were ineligible to host, that left competition for the 2034 World Cup down to just Asia and Oceania. Which is exactly what FIFA wanted. Because it let Saudi Arabia bid essentially unopposed for the event. So, while the timing of the announcement that Saudi Arabia will host in 2034 took some people by surprise, the fact that FIFA finagled it so that their preferred host would get it was not. (It also made every confederation except CONCACAF and OFC ineligible for 2038, so a return to the U.S. only 12 years later is a distinct possibility.)
Four of the first 12 World Cups were in South America. Three South American nations have lifted the trophy a total of 10 times. Yet the continent has hosted a grand total of one World Cup since 1978 (Brazil 2014). After those three games in 2030, they won't do so again until 2042 at the earliest. Which, again, is all because FIFA decided that those centennial games counted as the continent hosting the World Cup. (Paraguay is literally building a national stadium in Asuncion for one game!) Which is ridiculous.
During that same span, the United States and Mexico have both hosted twice. The 2030 tournament will be the sixth in Europe and second in Spain during that timeframe. This will also be the second in Africa. There's been more World Cups in Asia (2) than South America (1) since then. Granted, CONMEBOL is a small confederation in terms of membership. But still, how could considering three games in three different countries, which were given to throw them a bone more than anything else, "hosting" be taken as anything other than an insult?
Back to 2030 for a minute, though. FIFA's plan is to have Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay each play their home game a week before the rest of the tournament starts, then they and their opponents will travel to Spain, Portugal and Morocco for the remainder of the tournament (with a two-week break between their first and second games). The travel is only part of it. It'll also be Winter in South America. So, they'll be playing one game in the South American Winter before playing the rest of the tournament in the European Summer.
A big topic of discussion, of course, in the month since the 2026 World Cup ended is potentially expanding the 2030 tournament to 64 teams. Should the expansion come to pass, CONMEBOL wouldn't be as affected by the increase in teams as other confederations. CONMEBOL had six of its 10 members qualify for this year's World Cup, and Bolivia was in the intercontinental playoff. Even if just one spot was added, CONMEBOL would see 70 percent of its teams make the World Cup, by far the highest percentage of any confederation.
Should the expansion move forward, that would naturally mean more games. You'd have to figure that some of those games would be given to the three South American countries. Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay could play all three of their group games at home (and, presumably, so could the other teams in their groups so they're not going back-and-forth). So, there could conceivably be as many as 18 of 128 games hosted by the CONMEBOL teams rather than just three of 104.
Maybe that's part of the reason why CONMEBOL has given Infantino its support. If Infantino is reelected, the chances of a 64-team World Cup with more than three games in South America would seem to be higher. There are also rumors of a potential move that would see Mexico leaving CONCACAF and joining CONMEBOL. While I'm not sure how much truth there is to these rumors, the idea was apparently proposed by Infantino. Snagging Mexico away from CONCACAF would certainly be a coup for CONMEBOL. If true and Infantino can make it happen, that may be another reason why he has CONMEBOL's backing.
Will either of those things happen if Infantino isn't reelected? I have no idea! Is it possible that neither happens even if he is? Of course! But CONMEBOL, in theory at least, stands to potentially benefit from them. So, that might be why, too.
Regardless, CONMEBOL coming out in support of Infantino still looks strange. Because, on the surface, it would seem the opposite. You'd think they'd also be against him. Other than the financial windfall that every nation has seen during Infantino's presidency, how have the 10 CONMEBOL countries benefitted? Or do they simply see him as better than any potential alternative?
FIFA has a one country, one vote model, so Infantino is still very much beleaguered. The public support from CONMEBOL members is significant, though. Will it be enough to save his presidency? Maybe, maybe not. But the chances are better now than they were if CONMEBOL was standing firmly against him. Whether it'll make a difference is an entirely different question. But, if they help him keep his job, you'd better hope CONMEBOL reaps some sort of benefit. Which would be more than they're getting now.