Last summer, a senior associate pulled me aside to tell a joke. The joke involved a young man who, while alive, was mistakenly whisked away to hell. Upon arriving in hell, the man found it warm and sunny. So, he spent the rest of his life trying to get back.

Many years later, the man died. As expected, he was sent back to hell -- this time for real. Upon his return, however, the man found that hell had become scorching hot. The man, now old, was shocked by this change. The devil's explanation: "Before, you had only seen hell's summer associate program."

Summer associates, beware: your law firm careers might not be filled with the same bread and circus as you will enjoy this summer. However, the future also does not have to be hellish. This summer is a great time to seek out work you find interesting. For those of you considering a career in sports law, here are five summer tips to consider:

1. Sports law is not just for jocks. Many summer associates shy away from sports law because they are not athletes. Really, there is no need to do so. Although most big firms have a few stereotypical jocks hovering around sports assignments, the two most accomplished sports attorneys that I have encountered are close to the opposite -- Jeffrey Kessler (Dewey & LeBoeuf) and Shepard Goldfein (Skadden, Arps). As Jeffrey Kessler once told me, the first thing he looks for in a sports attorney is a good litigator that understands antitrust. At the end of the day, being an athlete may help you to enjoy sports, but it is not needed to become a successful sports lawyer.

2. It is not all about the formal assigning process. When done politely, letting partners and senior associates know about your interest in sports makes perfect sense. Although big firms generally have a summer assignment person, this person only knows as much as is conveyed through weekly paperwork. As you will soon learn, many attorneys are bad about completing their paperwork. This means the formal channels are not always the best way to get interesting sports assignments. It is best to talk to people directly and try to build relationships.

3. Sometimes working hard is worth it, even as a summer. Although summer associates rarely need to overachieve to get their offers, getting into a top sports practice group is a tad more competitive. Because sports assignments are rare, try to grab any sports work available -- even if the work does not come at the best time for your social calendar. This shows dedication and commitment, as well as could help get you into the loop to receive future and more opportune sports assignments.

4. Beware of the "bait and switch." Just because you are getting sports work as a summer does not mean you will get the same work when you return. In fact, many firms give summer associates assignment preference over junior associates. Before locking yourself into any firm or practice area, try to talk to junior associates about what work they are really doing, and whether they are reasonably happy. Be especially skeptical of firms that lump sports work together with less desirable areas of practice such as antitrust due diligence and Hart-Scott-Rodino filings. If you are not going to get sports work as a first year associate, at least try to find an opportunity where you can build your litigation skills. A sound litigator can always transition later into sports.

5. Keep an open mind. When choosing a practice area, keep in mind that eventually the glamour of big-name sports clients will subside, and what will be left is the underlying legal practice. If you choose sports law as a career, make sure you actually enjoy antitrust, contracts, labor and IP. If not, you may want to explore another area. It is always easier to explore new areas during the summer than as a first-year associate. According to some, that was the original purpose behind law-firm summer associate programs.

* * * * *
Marc Edelman is an attorney, business consultant, published author and professor, whose focus is on the fields of sports business and law. You can read his full bio by clicking here, and you can reach him by email by clicking here.

Recently we've been thinking about law-related names for racehorses. The subject came up when we were reading about how Big Brown, the 2008 Kentucky Derby winner, might win the Triple Crown and join the company of Affirmed (pictured) -- the last winner of the Triple Crown, in 1978.

Hearing about a racing horse named "Affirmed" led us to start thinking about other legally-themed horse names. A few ideas:

-- "Reversed" (or "Reversed and Remanded")

We liked how it played off of "Affirmed." But it's "probably not the kind of message you want to send to the oddsmakers," said a friend.

-- "Cert Denied"

Kinda badass, no? We'll put it down as a possibility.

-- "GVR"

Suggested by another friend, to continue on the Supreme Court disposition theme. "GVR" stands for "Grant, Vacate, and Remand" -- which can, depending on the circumstances, be something of a benchslap. But maybe it's too technical, appreciated only by SCOTUS junkies?

-- "Desuetude"

Nominated by a third friend (in the midst of studying for law-school finals). It's erudite, but a bit short on sex appeal.

Have an idea for a law-related racehorse name, à la Affirmed? If so, feel free to leave it in the comments. If we get enough nominations, maybe we'll hold a contest. Also, feel free to weigh in on the names previously mentioned, if you strong feelings about any of them.

Update: Please make sure that your nomination complies with these naming rules (posted by a helpful commenter).

Further Update: Okay, we've reached the 400-comment mark on this post, so we're closing the thread. Poll to follow shortly.

More about racehorses and the law, after the jump.

As the 3Ls complete their steady march through finals to graduation, we wonder if those heading into Biglaw are thinking about how the next few years will be like one long finals week.

Remember back in the day when you were idealistic about the law school experience, touring campuses, and trying to decide where to go to become a top-notch attorney? CBS Sports has a column on how to choose the right law school. Yeah, CBS Sports.

Here are our favorites from the list of 17 pieces of advice. We left off "don't be seduced by rankings."

1. Visit the school when there's good weather, if at least half of the guys aren't wearing shorts, flip-flops, and t-shirts, then you don't want to go there. Law school should be fun because being a lawyer isn't fun. If people at the law school are already dressing like they're practicing law (or the law school has some sort of stuffy motto like, "We take the law seriously in the classroom too") then you'll be miserable for three years. Trust me.

5. Think about the size of the law school. My Vandy class had 184 people. That's like a high school. You knew everyone. Some people loved this, others wished the school was bigger because once they got drunk, made out with a midget missing an arm, and later were called a midget lover by the entire class. At a larger law school this probably would have been less likely.

7. When you visit consider the attractiveness of the undergraduate population. One of my good friends went to college in the northeast. He knew nothing about Nashville or Vanderbilt. But he went to a law school fair and the Vanderbilt counselor gave him the usual selling points for a school like Vandy. My friend was unmoved. Then at the end, the guy said, sort of under his breath, "Plus, the undergrad girls are unbelievably hot." Sold. Remember, you don't want to waste your love in the law line at the bar on mediocre girls with bingo wings.

14. Don't go to the Midwest for law school. Pick any other region. Unless you're absolutely certain you want to practice in Chicago. Yeah, yeah, Chicago's awesome but it's also the de facto capital of about eight states. If you really want to end up in Chicago you can get there from lots of places outside the Midwest.

We were surprised to find law school advice on a sports site, but the columnist, Clay Travis, is actually a 2004 graduate of Vanderbilt Law School. He says, "Never underestimate what lawyers will do not to practice law." Indeed.

Though most of his columns are on sports, he lets the law creep in occasionally, such as this column on how each Supreme Court justice might rule on a fantasy sports case. It may have been a bit too "inside legal baseball" for the usual CBS Sports audience, since the only comment is "What the hell is this guy talking about?"

Update: Wondering about the identity of the law student in the photo? See here (and note her comment at 8:54 PM -- she's cool with our using it here).

ClayNation: Looking for law school? Study this precedent [CBS Sports]

Professional athletes are keeping a close eye on Lindsay Lohan this week, and probably not for the reason you might think.

Last Friday, the American Beverage Institute (“ABI”), a trade group that supports interests of the alcohol industry, took out an advertisement in USA Today, opposing the mandatory use of ignition interlocks (i.e., breathalyzers) in cars of first-time DWI offenders. The advertisement states “Ignition interlocks, A good idea for,” followed by a mug shot of Lindsay Lohan, “But a bad idea for us.”

ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell recently told MTV.com that she believes Lohan’s mug shot is fair game because it is already in the public domain. Although it is not clear that Longwell's view is correct, the ABI has already indicated plans "to extend its mugshots campaign to other celebrities." This also could open the door for other organizations to begin using athlete and entertainer mug shots in all kinds of weird ways.

Lohan recently consulted her lawyer, expressing an interest in suing ABI to stop these ads. Although she probably does not have a claim under the Lanham Act, she may have a better argument that the ABI violated her state-law publicity rights. If Lohan ultimately files suit, athletes and entertainers will have their fingers crossed for her victory.

How does the legal landscape look for LiLo? Read more, after the jump.

At last weekend’s NFL draft, University of Michigan wide receiver Mario Manningham, who was once projected as a late first-round draft pick, saw his stock drop all the way to the third round (95th overall). This happened after he sent a letter to the 32 NFL teams admitting to having smoked marijuana in college. Only the Super Bowl champion New York Giants (incidentally owned by Fordham Law School graduate John Mara) did not become scared away from drafting the former Wolverines wide receiver.

According to published reports, Manningham, when initially asked about his past drug use in interviews, denied ever using marijuana. However, upon hiring an agent (something that Manningham had to delay based on the NFLPA’s new “junior rule”), he wrote a follow-up letter to NFL teams admitting the truth, adding that “I don’t use marijuana anymore — and I have passed tests since.”

Candor about past drug use can be tricky for certain NFL candidates. In many years, evidence of trying marijuana has been as damaging to an NFL prospect’s draft stock as it was to Douglas Ginsburg’s 1987 bid for Supreme Court nomination. In the 1995 NFL draft, for example, University of Miami defensive lineman Warren Sapp, who most had projected as the draft’s first overall pick, fell all the way to no. 11 upon news that he tested positive for marijuana at that year’s combine. Indeed, Manningham’s situation is a bit different. “Super Mario” actually passed his drug tests at the 2008 combine. He did, however, test positive for marijuana twice while at the University of Michigan.

There are some real reasons why certain NFL teams choose not to sign players who admit to having tried marijuana. First, there is the malum prohibitum argument. Marijuana is illegal in the United States. Someone that breaks the law in any capacity shows disrespect for authority. One who disrespects authority is more likely to disobey a team’s internal rules. This spells bad news, especially for disciplinarian coaches.

Then, there are the medical arguments against an athlete using marijuana, both with respect to short-term and long-term health risks. Finally, some NFL teams fear that players who test positive for marijuana in college or shortly thereafter are more likely to get suspended for marijuana use in the pros. (See, e.g., Ricky Williams).

But might there also be less valid reasons for teams to avoid pot-smoking players? Read more, after the jump.

Next week in Lausanne, Switzerland, the Court of Arbitration for Sport will hear the appeal of double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius (previously blogged about here). Pistorious is challenging the International Association of Athletics Federation's ruling that he cannot compete in the 2008 Olympics because his j-shaped, carbon-fiber prosthetic legs allegedly violate an IAAF rule against "use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage."

As of recently, Pistorious has been represented by Dewey & LeBoeuf (disclosure: my previous employer) and the firm's acclaimed sports attorney, Jeffrey Kessler. The thrust of Pistorius's appeal will be that his prosthetic legs do not provide any advantage over real legs. Although a victory for Pistorius in this appeal would not make him the first amputee to compete in the Olympic Games (American George Eyser already has that title, having won three gymnastics gold medals on a wooden leg), it would pave the way for Pistorius, if successful in his trials, to become the first Olympic track and field runner to compete on prosthetic legs.

While Pistorius and his lawyers are pushing for the Court of Arbitration for Sport to rule him eligible to compete using his choice of prosthetics, a few recent lawsuits filed by disabled American athletes have requested far more drastic accommodations.

Read about one such suit, plus more commentary on Pistorious's case, after the jump.

Belluck & Fox is a nine-attorney law firm in Manhattan. The firm worked out a deal with the radio station that broadcasts New York Yankees games, making it the official legal sponsor of Yankee radio broadcasts.

The folks at Belluck & Fox must have misread the contract though. They took the sponsorship a bit too far and transformed their HomeRunLegal.com site into a bonanza of Yankee paraphenalia, calling themselves the team's official legal sponsor:

The site featured a photo of Yankee Stadium, a baseball emblazoned with the firm’s name, and a clipboard listing "Today’s Lineup" with such power hitters as "Mesothelioma & Asbestos Injuries," "Car and Motorcycle Accident Claims," and "Construction Accidents." Festooned with the Yankees logo, it claimed the firm was the "official legal sponsor" of the Bronx Bombers.

What exactly do the Yankees have to do with mesothelioma cases?

The ABA Journal called them out on it:

After the ABA Journal alerted the team to the firm’s purported sponsorship on Tuesday, [name partner Joseph Belluck] says a "friendly conversation" with a Yankees official about the inappropriate use of trademarks ensued. The firm promptly took down the website, and removed references to being the team’s legal sponsor from BelluckFox.com. "We never had any intention of running afoul of the Yankees’ guidelines," says Belluck.

Belluck & Fox may be experts in class action and personal injury suits, but it sounds like trademark law is not their forte.

In the cached version of their website, the logo is still visible. We suppose they could still have the logo up, but change it to the Not-so-official and Not-entirely-legal Sponsor of the Yankees.

Law Firm Strikes Out as Yankees ‘Sponsor’ [ABA Journal]

For several years, Starbucks chairman and CEO Howard Schultz threatened to move or sell the Seattle SuperSonics, unless the city of Seattle increased his share of arena revenues. Then, on July 18, 2006, Schultz lived up to his word, selling the Sonics to an ownership group based in Oklahoma City, OK. Yesterday, however, Schultz -- mired in bad PR from selling the Sonics -- announced plans to sue the Oklahoma-based purchasers to get the team back, arguing that even though the ownership group fully paid Schultz his requested $350 million sale price, the new owners breached the purchase agreement by failing to make a "good-faith effort" to keep the team in Seattle as they promised to do in the sale agreement. This case seems like a clear loser for Schultz, unless, of course, he is able to benefit from a home court advantage (pun intended).

Setting Schultz's claims aside for a moment, it is easy to feel bad for Seattle basketball fans. The NBA, as well as other premier American sports leagues, enjoys a monopoly over the supply of teams in their given sport. By limiting the number of teams, these leagues are able to drive up the price a city must pay to host a franchise. Not only does this strategy reduce the number of available teams below the amount that would otherwise be sustainable in a competitive market, but it also gives team owners the power to switch host cities whenever their facility demands are denied. As a result of this monopoly power, in 1995, the city of Seattle had to shell out $672 million in new stadium expenses just to keep the Mariners and Seahawks from moving. Unwilling to go in that route again, the city refused to give into demands of both Schultz and the new ownership group, and as a result, Seattle likely just lost the Sonics to another city. Indeed, these problems are endemic to American sports, given Congress's failure to address the excessive bargaining power of American sports leagues (pdf).

Discussion continues, after the jump.

Several Above the Law readers have sent me emails asking about how to become a certified sports agent. Many have even asked about the legitimacy of third-party websites that purport to certify agents. Here is the truth of the matter: there is absolutely no such thing as third-party agent certification. If you see a website purporting to offer that kind of service, run the other way faster than Forrest Gump.

If you seek to represent athletes in non-unionized sports, all you need to do is comply with the registration procedures enforced by certain states (and in rare instances register with the sport's governing body). Meanwhile, if you seek to represent athletes in unionized sports such as baseball, basketball, football and hockey, you will need certification from the respective players union because, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, the union serves as “the exclusive representatives for all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.”

In neither event will any certificate from a third party do you any good.

And what if you'd like to represent players in multiple sports? Read more, after the jump.

Over 2000 votes are in. It’s you, Latham & Watkins! Latham's the “coolest,” baby! By a .6% margin.

One of our readers from Cleary an unnamed firm expressed disappointment in the poll’s closing at midnight PST instead of EST. ATL believes in time zone equity and refused to exercise a New York East Coast bias.

The caveat on this ATL tournament is that Latham is the “coolest” law firm in the Vault’s top sixteen, due to our arbitrary tournament selection for the Sweet Sixteen. There was some complaining about the tournament in the comments section, but we think you guiltily and secretly loved it. At least, 2000 of you did. Should the ATL tournament start with 64 firms next time?

Maybe Latham will use the 2008 ATL title of “coolest” firm in their recruiting next year. We sure hope so.

The voting map surprised us, after the jump.

VERSUS

We had over 4900 votes in the "ATL Law Firm Final Four" this weekend. Latham & Watkins and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton emerged as the winners and will now go head to head to determine which is the "coolest" law firm. During commercial breaks in the NCAA basketball final tonight between the University of Memphis and the University of Kansas, come to ATL and vote. Or just vote throughout the day and bill it to "firm development."

We've given Latham a Memphis player's image. If Memphis wins tonight, it will be the first national champion from outside a major conference since 1990. Since Latham was the only non-New York law firm to make the final four, we think they would sympathize. Cleary got a Kansas player's image... because they both start with a hard "c" sound. Sports analysis is not our forte at ATL.

The polls close at midnight. Cast your vote here:

Die-hard fans can learn more about the Final Four results, and see the updated brackets, after the jump.

The #1-seed, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, hath fallen, along with all of the other top-seeded law firms, in an Elite Eight that was good for "underdog" lovers. Heading into the Final Four are Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (#7), Davis Polk & Wardwell (#5), Latham & Watkins (#8), and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (#6).

It's anybody's game. Here are the updated brackets:

Time to vote down to the two "coolest" firms, defining "cool" however you please. Polls and information on the Elite Eight voting are available after the jump. Polls close Sunday at midnight!

There's been some belly-aching about ATL Law Firm March Madness, but over 2300 people voted, so we shall press on! According to your votes, eight law firms have been chosen to advance. Here are the updated brackets:

Now it's time again to vote for the "cooler" firm, defining "cool" however you like. We appreciate your definitions via comment. Polls to determine the Final Four, and more information on the Sweet Sixteen match-ups, are available after the jump. Polls close at midnight.

Earlier: ATL March April Madness for Law Firms, Round 1: The Sweet Sixteen

We realize we are a bit late on March Madness. Given that all the #1-seeded teams are headed to the Final Four for the first time in NCAA basketball history, we assume your brackets are rubbish and you are open to distraction. Last year, we held a March Madness contest for law schools. UVA Law School came out on top.

This year, we give you ATL March April Madness for Law Firms!!!!

Brackets are based on Vault rankings. We wonder if Vault seeds will be as accurate as those by the NCAA tournament selection committee.

Here's how the tournament will work. Law firms will advance to the next round based on reader polls, in which we ask you which law firm is "cooler." You can define that however you choose.

The polls are available after the jump. Polls close at the end of the day!

In honor of both the start of baseball season and April Fool's Day, log onto Westlaw and type in 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1474. What you will find is a piece from the June 1975 University of Pennsylvania Law Review called The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule. This Aside, presumably written tongue-in-cheek, examines “whether the same types of forces that shaped the development of the common law also generated the Infield Fly Rule.”

The Infield Fly Rule is a baseball rule that prevents infielders from intentionally dropping pop flies with less than two outs and either runners on first and second base or the bases loaded. According to the rule, if a batter hits a pop fly in infield territory, the umpire is supposed to automatically call the batter “out.” Runners are then free to advance at their own risk.

As discussed in the Aside, baseball owners implemented the Infield Fly Rule to combat gamesmanship by infielders, including most famously Columbia Law School graduate Monte Ward, who realized that intentionally dropping pop flies would allow turning single outs into double plays and triple plays. Without adding such a rule, base runners would have no way to know whether to advance or retreat on pop flies until the very last moment.

Over the years, The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule has developed a cult following. The work has been cited 56 times, including by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Wikipedia ranks the Aside as one of the sixteen most “significant” works ever published by Penn Law Review. The author Will Stevens even stepped forward to identify himself after having originally published the piece anonymously.

More discussion, after the jump.

Last season, Barry Bonds, Major League Baseball’s all-time home run king, batted .276 with 28 home runs and 75 runs scored. Bonds also reached base 48 percent of the time—the best in all of baseball.

This season, however, Bonds is unemployed. The San Francisco Giants, his former team, prefer to play journeymen outfielders Dave Roberts and Rajai Davis. The Washington Nationals, meanwhile, seem to prefer outfielder Elijah Dukes, who has nearly as many lifetime arrests (6) as Major League home runs (10). Stranger still, the New York Mets claim to be content beginning the season with Ryan Church, Angel Pagan and Endy Chavez playing their corner outfield positions. Last season, the Church/Pagan/Chavez combo had 438 more at bats than Bonds, yet combined for eight fewer home runs, not to mention a lower combined batting average.

Bonds recently told the media that he is “working out” and “training,” in hopes of playing for some team this season. With recent notification that prosecutors must revise their perjury indictment against him, Bonds for the moment is free from any legal conflicts. In addition, Bonds is relatively healthy, not to mention just 65 hits shy of the 3,000 milestone.

So what's going on here? Read more, after the jump.

When the Miami Heat and Atlanta Hawks took the floor last Saturday at Phillips Arena, it marked the first commissioner-ordered “do over” in the past 25 years of NBA basketball. As per NBA Commissioner David Stern’s orders, the Phillips Arena scoreboard was re-set to 114-111 and the game clock was turned back to 51 seconds. The teams then proceeded to replay close to the final minute of a December 19 contest that the Hawks seemingly had already won 117-111. Neither team scored in the "do over" time, meaning the Hawks still utlimately won the contest but by three less points.

The Heat-Hawks "Do Over"

Commissioner Stern ordered this "do over" on January 11 because of what he considered to be “grossly negligent” conduct by the home-team Atlanta Hawks’ official scorers. With 51 seconds left in the original game, the Hawks’ scorers ruled that Miami Heat center Shaquille O’Neal had committed his sixth foul, meaning that O’Neal was ejected from the game. O’Neal, however, had really only committed five fouls.

Stern scheduled the "do over" for March 7, which was the next time when the Heat were supposed to play in Atlanta. This delay, however, created all kinds of problems. Most notably, the original dispute involved whether O’Neal was wrongly prevented from playing the game’s final 51 seconds. However, even though Stern ruled in favor of the Heat, O’Neal was again unable to play in the “do over” because he had been traded from the Heat to the Phoenix Suns for Shawn Marion and Marcus Banks—both of whom Stern deemed eligible to play. Based on this logic, if the Heat had acquired Kevin Garnett and Lebron James in the intervening period, they too would have been eligible to play.

More do-over discussion, after the jump.

On Friday, February 22, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (“MLBAM”) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (“MLBPA”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 07-1099), seeking to overturn the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the first amendment protects free use of baseball players’ names and statistics in fantasy sports games. MLBAM and the MLBPA both contend that the Eighth Circuit’s ruling fails to properly balance important concerns about state-law publicity rights against first amendment interests.

The original case, C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., emerged from a change in MLBPA policy regarding the licensing of player names to fantasy sports businesses. The district-court plaintiff, C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. (“CBC”), for over ten years had licensed directly from the MLBPA major league baseball player names for use in fantasy sports contests. Then, in 2005, the MLBPA decided not to renew CBC’s license—instead granting an exclusive right to use baseball players’ names to MLBAM “for exploitation via all interactive media." MLBAM thereafter launched its own fantasy baseball contest on its website MLB.com and refused to grant a sublicense to CBC. This led CBC to file suit.

CBC originally filed suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted it summary judgment, holding that CBC’s fantasy games did not infringe on any state-law publicity rights that belonged to major league baseball players. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on other grounds, finding that while CBC was indeed infringing on major league baseball players’ publicity rights, CBC’s “first amendment rights in offering its fantasy baseball products supersedes the players’ rights of publicity.” The Eighth Circuit based its ruling on three factors: (1) fantasy baseball statistics are already in the public domain; (2) major league baseball players are already “rewarded, and handsomely;” and (3) there is no danger that any consumers would be misled into believing the use of players’ names represents a product endorsement.

Discussion picks up, after the jump.

Until recently, fans were limited in their ability to become involved in the business side of sports. Now, however, three businesses are bringing fans a tad closer: (1) a soon-to-be launched, publicly owned professional football league known as the UFL; (2) a democratically run British soccer club called Ebbsfield United FC; and (3) an Internet-based business that sells future interests in the earnings of minor league baseball players.

UFL Public Offering

The story of fan ownership in pro sports inevitably begins with a New York Times article that ran last summer, announcing that financier Bill Hambrecht and Google executive Tim Armstrong were planning to launch a new publicly owned professional football league called the UFL. The UFL is slated to begin play in August 2008 with eight teams, each owned 50 percent by wealthy investors and 50 percent by public shareholders. A date for the initial public offering (“IPO”) is still pending.

The UFL is in the process of choosing its host cities, and it is doing so in an interesting way. With help from an online ticketing partner, prospective customers currently may purchase seating options in thirteen different cities. Whichever eight of these cities sells the most options will land the league’s first franchises.

Column continues, after the jump.

The thirteen commissioners of Miami-Dade County are expected on Thursday to approve a proposal to spend $347 million in taxpayer money to build a new 37,000-seat, retractable roof stadium for the Florida Marlins. This proposal would not only provide a huge subsidy to the team’s much maligned owner, Jeffrey Loria, but it also might violate the Florida Constitution.

According to published reports, the Marlins stadium proposal would require Miami-Dade County to contribute roughly two-thirds of the cost for the new stadium, with the city of Miami contributing roughly 3% ($10 million), and Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria contributing 30% ($155 million). According to Miami Today, Mr. Loria would then be allowed to sell the stadium’s naming rights to a third party, expected to fetch him more than $155 million.

A number of Miami-Dade County residents are unhappy about the idea of publicly funding a new stadium for Mr. Loria, who has never invested much of his own money in the Marlins ball club. Recently, on December 5, 2007, Mr. Loria traded away the Marlins’ two most productive players, Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis — a move that reduced team payroll to less than $25 million, the lowest in Major League Baseball. For purposes of comparison, the New York Yankees projected 2008 payroll is $213 million. The Yankees, incidentally, are privately financing their new stadium.

Read more, after the jump.