Tom Brady's 600th TD football

The Unkle wrote:

This post has been deleted for anti-semitic content and the poster was banned.>

How come only anti-semitic comments are banned? Is that where the PC line is?

Tipping at a restaurant is expected normal behavior. There is no expected normal behavior regarding exchanging a potentially valuable football for anything. Also, if you only give 15%, you're a cheap b@stard. And, you are super lame if you decide to not tip because you don't like the system. If that's the case, make your own food and stay home.

I have ZERO issue with regard to what Brady or the Buccaneers decide to do here. They are not obligated in any way to give that fan a penny.

HappyJack wrote:

How much do you follow sports?

In football players often times keep the ball if it's a memorable touchdown or interception for them for example. So this receiver for Tampa could have kept the ball for his own. Claiming "I caught Tom Bradys 600 TD pass!" He caught it, he owns it if he wants to. But he gave it to a fan instead of Brady. Now the ownership is passed on to the fan. No one could legally take the ball away from him. Sorry if you don't agree with a law called "the chain of custody." But it is/was applicable in this case.

Catching the pass absolutely does not make the receiver the owner and Evans did not have right to hand a $500K asset to a fan. If I throw my football to a friend, does he become the owner so long as he makes a clean catch?

The examples in your 1st sentence do require the permission of the team and it's probably addressed in the player's contract.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. She did not acquire ownership.

If a fan catches a WS walkoff home run ball, he/she owns it. If it bounced back on to the field of play, the outfielder picked it up and handed it to a fan, it would not be ownership.

Would you mind expanding on this? Why in one case does ownership change hands and in the other it doesn't?

Does custom come into play? In baseball I've never heard of a team demanding the ball back without compensation in either case posted. In tennis fans are routinely expected to give the ball back if it goes into the stands during play (some tournaments are more lenient) but can keep it if a player hits it into the stands after a match. In football I haven't heard of a team demanding the ball back after being given the ball by a player. I don't know if they are expected to give it back for missed field goals, etc. In soccer I don't think fans can just keep the ball. Wouldn't generations of custom be a part of the legal decision?

I'm not yet sure where I stand on this but your answers will likely help me understand the situation better. Thanks.

Sport Management Professor weighing in...

A team loses the rights to a ball if the ball is "abandoned" by the team, which almost always is the case for baseballs that are hit into the stands, or when a ball is "gifted."

In this case a player from the home team made a choice to gift a ball to a fan. Further, there was no immediate attempt to reclaim the ball (making both a "gifting" and "abandonment" argument likely to succeed). To show that a gifting took place the fan would need to show that there was an intent to gift and that there was actual or constructive delivery of the item. That the player intended to give the ball to the fan and actually did so is undeniable. He obviously was not loaning it out for a few minutes or giving it the fan for safe keeping. He gave it away.

The ball was requested back only after the value was determined. An offer was made to the fan and he accepted. The fact that an offer was made, not a demand that the ball be returned so play could continue (or similar reason), would be treated as an acknowledgement that a gifting had taken place and the fan had ownership and a right to refuse to return the ball.

Whether the fan should have given the ball back, or whether we would do so, is an interesting discussion from an ethical or social-norms perspective. But if push came to shove regarding a legal issue of ownership, the fan would be in far better position than Tom Brady or the team.

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^""""""""'"--';"- wrote:

Angelo Pappas wrote:

I’m not a collector so I don’t appreciate the value to Brady or a fan. You can buy the exact ball at a sporting goods store for $50 I’m guessing.

What are you going to do with it? Set it on the mantle and pray to it?

To each his own I guess.

That's like saying all people are exactly the same.

So what are you going to do with it? Pray to it? Run it on your nuts? What is the intrinsic value?

Ultimately the financial value is rooted in the intrinsic value.

WDC Runner wrote:

[quote]SDSU Aztec wrote:

Does custom come into play?

To add to my previous post, yes, custom would come into play.

If the team attempted to force the return of the ball by claiming that they had not abandon it or that the player did not have the right to gift it, the fan would introduce endless hours of film of NFL players gifting balls after scoring touchdowns and the balls never being returned or even asked for as evidence that the custom is that players can and do gift balls all the time.

Evidence regarding custom or convention would be completely in the fan's favor.

Sports memorabilia is dumb. Every time I have been in some big money VP or attorney's office, they have a bunch of framed jerseys, game balls, etc. that they paid big money for. And they absolutely never have any connection with the players or team other than paying a bunch of money for the memorabilia. And it is more often than not something they got at a silent auction at a benefit Gala, which means that the team donated it or some other rich guy donated it.

The receiver did not own the ball, so therefore, he could not give it away. It would not be a valid transaction. What exactly did this girl do to receive a $500K gift?

Thank you! You said it much better than my attempt. I'm always grateful for reinforcements especially on this site.

Because players in almost every game gift balls, it is accepted practice that the person who possesses the ball can gift it away. To further this, the players are not fined and do not even have to pay for the balls when they gift them to the fans. (There are fines for throwing or kicking balls into the stands for safety reasons, but those fines follow a penalty being called on the play. Because there was no penalty on this play, it clearly falls under the more obvious issue of standard "gifting" of a ball to a fan).

The fan did not do anything to receive a gift (which is of unknown value at this time) but the fan also did NOT have to do anything. I can walk up to you on the street and hand you $100, or $500k as a gift. I can then walk away and you can receive it and immediately have ownership without any need to do or perform anything in exchange.

The definition of "gift" is that the recipient is not expected to do anything in exchange.

To answer you directly:

According to custom the player DID have the right to gift.

The player did gift it.

The team demonstrated no immediate action to reclaim it (they abandon it, as they always do with gifted balls).

The fan has no legal obligation to do anything to "earn" the gift. They need to merely accept/receive the delivery and it is their property.

Flagpole wrote:

Doesn't matter how much Brady is worth or his wife is worth or how much the Buccaneers are worth, right is right, and people are not entitled to unearned success. The only correct thing to do there is for the fan to give the ball back.

If you want $500,000, go make $500,000. Neither Brady nor the team is obligated to give a fan ANYTHING just because he has possession of a football.

Would you say the same thing about a fan that caught a record home run ball? By your logic if a kid catches any home run ball they are obligated to give it back if the player or team wants it. That may be technically/legally true but it seems to violate the spirit of a sporting tradition. Either fans should be allowed to keep balls or they should not.

RossiCheated wrote:

WDC Runner wrote:

[quote]SDSU Aztec wrote:

Does custom come into play?

To add to my previous post, yes, custom would come into play.

If the team attempted to force the return of the ball by claiming that they had not abandon it or that the player did not have the right to gift it, the fan would introduce endless hours of film of NFL players gifting balls after scoring touchdowns and the balls never being returned or even asked for as evidence that the custom is that players can and do gift balls all the time.

Evidence regarding custom or convention would be completely in the fan's favor.

It's hard to equate those scenarios. Usually, a player is giving away a ball worth about $50, or whatever they costs. If he signs it, it would be worth more. The team considers it to be goodwill so of course they aren't going to make a fuss over it.

It's not the custom to give away a ball worth $500K to a fan. It was a gift from Evans to the fan and he did not own the ball. It would not be a valid transfer of ownership.

Agreed thank you for the explanation. I'm even more in favor of them "paying up" now. They totally hosed this fan.

According to custom the player absolutely had the right to gift the ball and he did so.

The perceived value of the gift (which is presently unknown) is immaterial to the fact that he gifted it away and the gift was received. A transfer of ownership occurred.

It would be the obligation of the person who is giving a gift to know the value and to decide whether to make the gifting. The recipient can take ownership with no idea what the value could be and is the new owner whether the gift have great or minor value.

The question at hand for a court would be whether it is custom for players who score touchdowns to gift balls and do fans then keep those balls. The answer is an unequivocal yes. The potential value of the ball would be a moot point.

Brady and the Bucs just tipped the fan 0.02% the worth of that football. So who's the cheap b@stard?

mixed feelings wrote:

Brady and the Bucs just tipped the fan 0.02% the worth of that football. So who's the cheap b@stard?

0.2%

mixed feelings wrote:

Brady and the Bucs just tipped the fan 0.02% the worth of that football. So who's the cheap b@stard?

...if it was a "tip", they would've paid him the full-value of the football plus the additional amount.

That being said... I've been a sports-nut since I was old enough to watch football on TV, and I just don't "get" the whole sports memorabilia thing. Anybody who would pay $500K for a damn football has an incredible surplus of money and an incredible deficit of common sense.

Now that you mention it... wrote:

mixed feelings wrote:

Brady and the Bucs just tipped the fan 0.02% the worth of that football. So who's the cheap b@stard?

...if it was a "tip", they would've paid him the full-value of the football plus the additional amount.

That being said... I've been a sports-nut since I was old enough to watch football on TV, and I just don't "get" the whole sports memorabilia thing. Anybody who would pay $500K for a damn football has an incredible surplus of money and an incredible deficit of common sense.

Agreed.

I don't know why this ball would be so valuable, other than we are oddly attracted to round numbers as milestones (this was Brady touchdown pass #600). He went on to throw touchdown passes 601 and 602 in the same game, I believe, so shouldn't those be worth more? Every TD pass that he throws sets the record for career TD passes, so 601 broke the record set only minute before, and then 602 broke that record. Are they worth less because they are not round numbers or multiples of 100? Does Brady want to keep every TD pass ball because every one of them is the new record ball?

I could see an inflated value for his first TD pass, and his last in his career, and for the pass that broke the career TD pass record his first time, but this one seems pretty random other than being a multiple of 100. Otherwise it is just another TD pass in a blowout of an average team.