Legal Challenges of Playing in Sports Bubble
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isolated. Away from families. Physical Stress. Emotional Stress. Vying for a championship. That is how those who have been in bubbles in the NBA, NSWL, NHL have been living since early July. While there have been tons of challenges in terms of logistics and getting staff, media, and the teams down to hotels and competition daily while still taking public health into account, there have been tons of legal challenges as well. The legal challenge has been complying with government directives. Before diving into this further, it is important to note that the MLB (Major League Baseball) did not play its regular season in an isolated bubble. This made things complicated for one team: the Toronto Blue Jays. They are the only team to play in Canada, but unfortunately, the Canadian government did not allow them to play their home games there due to the risk of spreading the coronavirus, the government said. According to the Canadian government, “it would not be safe for the team and opposing Major League Baseball teams to travel back and forth between the U.S. and Canada (Ingles, 2020).” There have been some restrictions in Canada, but the MLB was not one of them. There are guidelines proposed by, “The Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF), which show some of the public health factors in terms of how many people could gather in one location (Ingles, 2020). A second legal challenge to look at and consider is the duty to anticipate foreseeable dangers. Tort law, which focuses on a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, is brought into question front and center here because the bubble is designed to try to minimize risk and travel, but the government has a duty to protect and prevent dangers from happening and taking place. For example, in the Philippines there is a Family Code and under Article 218 of the code, “schools, its administrators, and teachers have special parental authority and responsibility over minor children.” However, this also applies on a broader scale to higher level corporations and companies. In the US, there is a slight difference as those who preside over and decide what they think is best for a public health standpoint for the players. Each governor in the states gets to make the rules and decides what events and the capacity that can take place in their town. A final legal challenge to look at is looking closely at the contracts and financial decisions being made and allowing for players to opt out. The NB, for example, allowed players to fully opt out for health reasons, injury concerns, or fear of contracting the virus and additional reasons. As one NBA Stakeholder put it, “Will players who opt out because of medical reasons still be entitled to salary, albeit at a decreased rate? Will those who decide to sit out because they simply “feel uncomfortable” get any salary at all? Will teams be allowed to field replacement players for those opt out? What willbe the deadline for opting out (Ingles, 2020)?” In terms of looking at how tort law could be applied to the bubbles, the courts generally decide suits involving injuries to athletes, spectators, and other parties involved in sports according to basic tort laws. In terms of specifics and how this relates to the bubble, while players and teams can not necessarily sue a governor or a town if they get COVID, liability is still a factor to monitor (Sports Law, 2020). It is a reason why schools across the country have been hesitant to open even if they do it in a safe way. They don’t want to be held liable or face negligence charges if in fact someone gets COVID, spreads it, and there are fatalities associated with the situation. While the bubble has completed and there were zero positive tests in the NBA, NSWL, and NHL bubbles, there were clear legal, economic, and health hurdles that had to be figured out and thoroughly looked at.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".