Darren Adam Heitner, Esq., is a preeminent sports attorney and the founder of Heitner Legal, P.L.L.C., a Fort Lauderdale-based law firm specializing in sports law, contract negotiations, intellectual property, and arbitration. He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law in 2010 and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, magna cum laude, from the University of Florida in 2007, where he was named Valedictorian of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Admitted to practice in the state bars of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia, as well as multiple federal courts, Darren also serves as a certified arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association.
As an adjunct professor, Darren imparts his expertise through teaching Sports Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) at the University of Miami School of Law in the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law LL.M. program. His scholarly contributions include authoring several books published by the American Bar Association, such as How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, and numerous articles in prominent publications like Forbes, Inc. Magazine, and Above the Law. His thought leadership in NIL has earned him recognition as one of the foremost experts by The Wall Street Journal, USA TODAY, and On3, and he has been lauded as a “power player in NIL deals” by Action Network and a “top sports trademark attorney” by Sportico.
Darren’s passion for sports law led him to establish Sports Agent Blog on December 31, 2005, initially titled “I Want To Be A Sports Agent.” The platform, created as a New Year’s resolution, has grown into a cornerstone of the sports agency community, offering in-depth analysis of industry trends, legal disputes, and agent-player dynamics. His commitment to the field is further evidenced by his representation of numerous athletes and sports agents, as well as his prior role as an Adjunct Professor at Indiana University Bloomington, where he developed and taught a course on Sport Agency Management from 2011 to 2014.
Darren’s contributions have been recognized with prestigious honors, including the University of Florida’s 40 Under 40 Award, the University of Florida Levin College of Law’s Outstanding Young Alumnus Award, and designation as the best lawyer in Fort Lauderdale by Fort Lauderdale Magazine. He remains an active voice in the sports law community, sharing insights through his weekly NIL newsletter and his X posts, engaging a broad audience on legal developments in sports.
View Archive →
Go check out the National Sports and Entertainment Law Society’s blog for a post by Tassos Kaburakis, Ph. D., an Assistant Professor of Sport Law and Sport Management and Director of the Sport Management Graduate Program at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He has a very in-depth response to the recent Opinion and Judgment Entry released by Judge Tygh M. Tone in the Andy Oliver case. While I definitely disagree with a lot of what Kaburakis mentions, his arguments are well-grounded and make me second guess a lot of my original thoughts on the ruling. I believe that it is ludicrous that the NCAA should be allowed to limit an attorney’s advising role between student-athletes and scouts, but Kaburakis points out some other flaws in the judgment that I overlooked after my first read. One of his closing statement’s is,
2 replies on “A Provocative Response To The Andy Oliver Ruling”
It is interesting that Kaburakis only points to the potential harm being done to the schools while there is real harm being done to the student athletes. In reality, the NCAA rules about amateurism promote an ideal. The rules relating to what an attorney can and get do for his client are a matter of legal rights. Maybe it’s the lawyer in me – but legal rights should always trump an ideal of a business association.
His craziest contention is that schools would repeatedly recruit and play athletes who are ineligible. The NCAA deals very harshly with repeat offenders. This does lead to one of his better questions though – how can a school realistically play a player that is the subject of an investigation and may be ineligible to play when the penalties for playing an ineligible player will cost the school so much? Honestly, the answer is pretty simple – due process requires that people be considered innocent until proven guilty. The same penalty will apply regardless of whether the school had reasonable suspicion before or not – so it is better to play the player. Additionally, it is within the NCAA’s powers to modify the punishment depending upon the severity of the incident and whether it is a result of systematic failure or an accidental transgression.
As for his final statement – it is not up for a judge to provide or promote a new system. That would be legislating from the bench. He is merely required to rule on the case before him and state his reasoning therefore.
Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to change the definition of what it means to be an amateur so that student athletes lives aren’t ruined so easily by a mistake. For example, to change the definition so that a player doesn’t become professional the second he/she signs a professional contract, but the second he/she plays as a professional. (I concede that there would probably have to be some sort of time limit on the former so that players don’t sign professional contracts while they are freshmen – or even in the middle of a season. The NCAA can create a window such as before college and during the summer – the player may sign and/or negotiate a professional contract. If it is still in place when sport starts, then they lose their eligibility.)
[…] http://sportsagentblog.com/2009/02/16/a-provocative-response-to-the-andy-oliver-ruling/ […]