In writing a biography about his father, Jay Paterno makes the point quickly that the book is not an attempt to canonize Joe Paterno: "I know all too well that he was human, an imperfect being." He also says that the book is for journalism students. "In a world where the pressure to be first often outweighs the responsibility to be right, I hope you always look in your heart and pursue the truth. It is the most solemn responsibility of freedom of the press. Realize your mistakes will have consequences for real people." Here is an excerpt of Paterno Legacy.

Many of you landed on this page because you are a Penn Stater, a college football fan, or a sports fan wanting to know more about Joe Paterno's life.

I also know some are here because you're interested in the Jerry Sandusky scandal and its accompanying fallout. You want to know what Joe Paterno knew and when he knew it. That is the elephant in the room. I get that.

My father's life was big, complex, and principled, and he himself would tell you he was not perfect. But what the Freeh Report asserted is far from the truth.

Child sexual abuse is the witch trial topic of our time. I fully grasp the powerful emotions wrought by this issue. Calm discussion is difficult. It is outside our comfort zone, creating a lack of awareness that provides cover for perpetrators to operate in plain sight.

However, we must remember what Johns Hopkins University professor Dr. Fred Berlin stated in his report: "In our legitimate effort to protect innocent children, the fair treatment of adults should not become a collateral casualty."

After the Freeh Report, I understand why people are angry at the university and my father. But as FBI director, Freeh took Richard Jewell from hero to suspect in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing. After the facts were uncovered, Jewell was indeed the good guy, but the damage was done.

Our world demands immediate reaction and analysis. Initial reporting is often inaccurate and lacks perspective. For my father and Penn State, almost three years later the truth is getting clearer. An in-depth investigation by former U.S. attorney general Dick Thornburgh, former FBI profiler Jim Clemente, and Dr. Berlin presented a record supported by facts and evidence.

Both Thornburgh and Clemente worked with Louis Freeh. Yet both studied the report he issued and found it deeply flawed. Both addressed Joe Paterno's role related to crimes committed by another.

My father did not commit a crime or even witness a crime.

This book is not an attempt to include my father as a victim in the horrible Sandusky story. When my father was fired, he reiterated to me that being fired paled in comparison to what had happened to others.


In an email to their subscribers in November of 2011, The New York Times recapped how they had covered the story.

It concluded the email by saying this: "More than boys had been violated it seemed. A proud university's sense of superiority and privilege and arrogance had been blown up, too."

Using the specter of boys being violated was inappropriate. But in the headline and body of editor Joe Sexton's story, the name Penn State appeared six times, Paterno four times, and the man charged at the time, Jerry Sandusky, zero times.

Joe Paterno has been pronounced by the media as "the most powerful man in the state," the foundation of an argument alleging he could and should have done more. His own words: "In hindsight I wish I had done more" have been used against him over and over again as a sign of guilt.

It never was an admission of guilt. It was a painful statement that if he had only known more, then he could have done more. Clemente's powerful report makes the point that Joe Paterno was but one of many, some infinitely more highly educated on this issue, who missed this.


These are the facts. Joe Paterno was made aware that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with a young boy a day after a witness saw it. What that witness told him is subject to interpretation, but we do know that the witness never told him that he had seen a boy being raped. It was the first and only time Joe Paterno had ever been told by a witness that Jerry had been in the showers with a young boy.

I must reiterate that the witness never told Paterno he witnessed a rape and never told police that he had seen one. The grand jury presentment inaccurately stated that the witness stated he had seen an anal rape and had told Joe Paterno "what he saw." The perception that Joe Paterno had been told about an anal rape and did nothing took hold and cost him his job.

In early 2013 University of Arkansas law professor Brian Gallini made that point the centerpiece of a 64-page paper published in the Tennessee Law Review. On page seven of his paper, he wrote: "Paterno's downfall illustrates the importance of grand jury secrecy -- both during and after its investigation. That secrecy, present in all federal grand jury proceedings, prevents collateral damage -- like job loss -- to unindicted criminally innocent third parties. The absence of that secrecy in Pennsylvania's investigative grand jury proceedings took Paterno's job, tarnished his legacy, and perhaps even shortened his life."

The presentment, combined with the state police commissioner's statement that Paterno had failed his moral obligation, doomed Paterno's career.

The commissioner made that statement despite the attorney general's having stated that Joe had been wholly cooperative, followed the law, and was not a subject of the investigation.

But the police commissioner's irresponsible characterization was allowed to stand unchallenged. The counter-narrative took hold. Even after the trial was over, Jerry Sandusky was never convicted of any rape on Penn State's campus.

The 2001 incident was one of two incidents at Penn State's campus that were brought to anyone's attention. A 1998 incident was investigated by the police, given to the county district attorney, and investigated by the state. The determination made was that no crime had been committed, and charges were never filed. The NCAA in handing down Penn State's sanctions stated that Penn State had failed to respond appropriately. The NCAA ignored the facts.

In his report Freeh alleged that Joe Paterno was not only made aware of the 1998 incident, but also "followed the investigation closely." He based this premise on an email from athletic director Tim Curley to university vice president Gary Schultz with the subject line "Joe Paterno" and the sentence "I have touched base with the coach." Not a word what he touched base about, nor the coach's identity.

What Freeh failed to consider are other 1998 factors. Jerry Sandusky was negotiating a retirement package. He was also talking with the university about starting a lower-division football program at Penn State's Altoona campus. There was also an investigation into a 1997 All-American running back's acceptance of improper benefits from a sports agent before the bowl game.

But Freeh's report made two assumptions about one sentence while ignoring the context, of which he was ignorant.

Several people testified under oath that Joe Paterno was never told of the 1998 incident. In the lengthy 1998 police report on the Sandusky incident, Joe Paterno's name was never mentioned. And Joe Paterno stated he had no recollection of being told. State law also required strict confidentiality in child sexual abuse investigations, so it would have been illegal for Joe Paterno to have been told.

All of this information was available to Freeh, but he chose to shape his interpretation to fit his unproven narrative in the face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

In 2001 Sandusky no longer worked for Joe Paterno, and access to the facility had been granted to Sandusky by the administration and signed off by provost Rod Erickson (who would ascend to the presidency in the first
days of the scandal). Paterno, not sure what he could do in this situation, reported it to his superiors as required by law and by university policy.

ESPN writer and holder of multiple Pulitzer Prizes Don Van Natta said after reading all the reports: "Even if you believe he should have done more, it is a big leap to a cover-up, one unsupported by any evidence."

In a September 2013 interview with the CBS show 60 Minutes, Sandusky prosecutor Frank Fina was asked if he believed Joe Paterno had been involved in the alleged cover-up. "I do not," he said. "And I'm viewing this strictly on the evidence, not any kind of fealty to anybody. I did not find that evidence."


Clemente stated on ESPN's Outside the Lines on February 10, 2013:

"One man was responsible for this -- Jerry Sandusky. This was not a football culture problem. This was not a Penn State problem."

There is a perception that Sandusky continued even after the 2001 incident to bring kids to Penn State practices, travel with the team to away games and bowl games, and even bring them to the sidelines for home games. There is a perception he kept showing up and showering with boys in our building. That is one reason why some people believe we knew and looked the other way.

None of that is true. After he retired Sandusky was no longer part of our program, and we did not see him except when he came in to work out alone early in the morning.

When I went to ESPN in February 2013 to discuss the results of our report, I found persistent misinformation. After I explained the 1998 situation to Mike Golic and finished our interview, he stated Joe Paterno had to have known when Sandusky was arrested. Sandusky was not arrested in 1998.

Later that morning, Colin Cowherd stated that Joe Paterno should have known that Sandusky had been to a grand jury in 1998. There was no grand jury at that time. Cowherd also asserted that Paterno should have fired Sandusky in 2001. That would have required Joe Paterno to have re-hired him, so that he could fire him. All those months later, the false narratives persisted.

But the university administration finds it convenient to let the false perceptions remain because they help justify actions they took against Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

-- Excerpted by permission from Paterno Legacy by Jay Paterno. Copyright (c) 2014 by Jay Paterno. Published by Triumph Books. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. Available for purchase from the publisher, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and iTunes. Follow Jay Paterno on Twitter @JayPaterno.

Venus Williams and Sara Errani may have engaged in the most compelling match of the 2014 U.S. Open. Unfortunately, a lack of sportsmanship from Errani diminished the legacy of this two-hour classic Friday.

In an odd sequence, Errani won the first set of the third-round match 6-0 while Williams took the second 6-0. After the bagel exchange, Williams had a chance to serve out the match at 5-3 in the third. But a crucial double fault opened the door for Errani, who rallied and won on a tiebreaker.

The mostly American crowd had been forcefully pro-Venus during the wild match, but when Errani took the final point, fans gave a standing ovation to both players.

Errani, 27, did not embrace the calling. One could make the argument there is a cultural barrier, but Errani's post-match actions suggested she was happy to stick it to the American crowd.

After pumping her chest and shaking Williams' hand, Errani cupped her hand to her ear. In all languages, this is a sign of pointing out a crowd's noise level. For a home athlete, this is usually to make them louder. For a visitor, it can be taken as a mockery of the noise level.

Errani, who was the higher seed in the match (No. 13 vs. No. 19), continued to holler at the audience, wagging a finger at the crowd and raising it to her mouth, telling the Americans to be quiet. In Errani's defense, this is a motion she has done before, as can be seen in highlights from this year's French Open. Given the venue, Errani could have held back. In the United States, such an act is taken as poor sportsmanship (with the possible exception of Dikembe Mutombo).

Asked what message she was sending with those demonstrative gestures, Errani said she was nervous, particularly after pulling even at 5-5 in the tiebreak:

"Five-all in the tiebreak, I heard the crowd. Never hear the crowd like that strong. I was shaking for the crowd. [It] was unbelievable good. I think I will remember that moment forever. Of course, in the point after, I was nervous. I was like now you don't scream, like if they didn't scream. But of course the crowd was for her, totally for her. I don't know why I did like that."

Errani entered the match 0-3 against Williams, a seven-time Grand Slam champion. Errani is also 0-7 against Serena Williams, including semifinal losses at the 2012 U.S. Open and the 2013 French Open.

Errani, who called her win "unbelievable," said was not mad with the New York fans.

"I was with the tension, with the adrenaline in the body, so I was just -- I don't know," Errani said. "I don't know how to explain it."

That could be a language limitation for Errani, who is Italian. But Errani is also an established WTA professional. She has been ranked as high as No. 5 in the world and is currently No. 15. She has enough experience to fight her way out of a hole even in the trenches of Flushing Meadows.

When it came to talking about the crowd on Venus' side, she said she did not prepare for the Venus fans, but rather just Williams' game.

"I just was thinking about that Venus is a great player -- unbelievable player," she said. "Every time I play against her, she won against me very easily. I thought I had to make my level higher, try to be much more aggressive than any time, and try to keep focus on every point.

"The crowd was amazing. Even if it was not for me, it was for her. But to hear that scream of all the people I think I will always remember."

See Slideshow >>

The new college football playoff system that replaces the BCS is a step in the right direction, but veteran broadcaster Al Michaels cautions against putting too faith in it. Here is the analysis he gave at the Harold & Carole Pump Foundation's 14th annual celebrity dinner in Century City, California.

Maria Sharapova disposed of fellow Russian Maria Kirilenko 6-4, 6-0 on Monday night. The match took just 90 minutes, which probably didn't make it much different than Sharapova's other nine U.S. Open first-round victories.

But what Sharapova said afterwards might make the night a bit more memorable. The 27-year-old, who won the 2006 U.S. Open, was The 27-year-old was asked what she would change in the sport of tennis, if anything.

"I'd probably start charging for medical timeouts," Sharapova said with a smile. "I think we'd all see who really uses them and who doesn't. Yeah, I don't know what we put on it, maybe like $2,500 or something. Yeah, I think we should do that. That would be fun."

The issue of medical timeouts is an ongoing saga in tennis. In her last match before the U.S. Open, Sharapova was annoyed when Ana Ivanovic used one. Ivanovic said she was nauseous. But Sharapova questioned why Ivanovic needed her blood pressure checked as well as the timing, which came early in the third set. Ivanovic ended up winning.

Players have the ability to call out trainers to repair injuries, although, some individuals are criticized for using the timeouts as extra forms of rest. In doing so, players can also "ice" their opposition.

Sharapova recognized many of timeouts are necessary, but there is no doubt they can throw off a competitor's game.

"Sometimes they're shorter than others," she said. "Sometimes they don't go through the whole medical timeout. Sometimes the evaluation itself is longer than the three-minute timeout. Sometime it's an off-court medical, which is even longer. I think from my end, it's just a matter of keeping that focus, not sitting down for that whole time, moving a little bit, swinging, maybe hitting a few serves if it's a longer one."

As Sharapova was pressed for her reasoning for such comments, she insisted she is not accusing anyone of unleashing a medical timeout attack at her, although her match with Ivanovic might suggest otherwise. She said she is annoyed more at the general distraction rather than the opponent's motive.

"It's actually never bothered me because I've always recovered from it positively," she said. "I don't remember many times where it's affected me too much. I've never felt like a victim of it."

Charging money for timeouts, or at least the amount Sharapova proposed, might not be a deterrent for the bigger stars on the tour. For reference, Sharapova has nearly $31 million in prize money. That is second in all-time career earnings behind Serena Williams ($56 million) and just ahead of Venus Williams (approximately $30 million).

But for a player like 20-year-old 2014 NCAA champion Danielle Rose Collins, who lost a three-set match to second-seeded Simona Halep on Monday, the cost would be steeper. Collins has $4,964 in career earnings. This would make medical timeouts a luxury.

Sharavopa, the No. 5 seed is back in action Wednesday against Alexandra Dulgheru, the 95th-ranked player in the world from Romania. The 25-year-old has $1.3 million in career earnings, so if Dulgheru had to pay, she might be up for the wager.

Back in 1994, I was co-chairman of the "Save the Rams" committee comprised of 150 local businessmen and political figures fighting to keep the franchise from moving to St. Louis. We succeeded in securing an initial NFL vote at the league meeting to block the sale, but ultimately the team moved.

I said then that if Southern California lost the team, it would be years before a replacement came. People scoffed, "Los Angeles is the second largest market in the U.S., and the NFL needs us for its television contract." It has now been 20 years, and without action, it could be 20 more.

What has followed was a series of disorganized and inept responses by the political and business structure of Southern California to the league's desire to put a franchise back in the city.

In 2000, the NFL awarded Los Angeles an expansion franchise. Southern California could not produce a viable stadium plan, and Houston was given the franchise instead. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue later offered Los Angeles a deal no other city had been given: The NFL would build a stadium itself on the Coliseum site and hand the bill to a new owner. Los Angeles fumbled the few tasks assigned to it, and Tagliabue withdrew in frustration.

Phil Anschutz of AEG proposed a downtown stadium plan. Tim Leiweke assembled a broad coalition of political and business leaders, and created a master economic plan that was viable. Anschutz fired Leiweke and has demanded a large share of equity in a new team for his involvement -- checkmate.

Here are the basic components necessary to bring one or two teams back to Los Angeles:

1) A political leader willing to take charge of the process and responsibility for executing the necessary steps. Southern California has a complex political structure: Los Angeles has a County Board of Supervisors, a city council; Orange County has a Board of Supervisors and city mayors. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is the logical choice.

2) One consensus venue to house a stadium, not multiple venues. Developer Ed Roski has been pushing an alternative plan for years and it should be considered.

Also needed are:

3) Public tolerance for minor infrastructure changes. Our area is tax phobic, but a few street adjustments will be needed.

4) Balanced press. The Los Angeles press is the antithesis of the boosterism in other areas, but the public at least needs to hear the advantages of a new stadium and team.

5) Ownership that understands that Southern California loves stars, and events.

I have never favored ripping teams out of the heart of a loyal fan base. Professional teams are not purely private businesses -- they ask for the loyalty of fans as if they were quasi-civic treasures. Only if they cannot stay in business, should they be allowed to move. So I would advocate an expansion team.

Southern California could support two franchises as it does with baseball, basketball and hockey. And make no mistake -- football is a ten "concert date" attendance business. The presence of large numbers of national corporations and the entertainment business would sell out high-priced luxury boxes and premium seating. Seventeen million people live within a few hours driving time from a stadium. Marketing, memorabilia, social media, and local television programming would generate massive revenue.

Earlier this week, Michael Ozanian and Forbes did a superb reporting on the franchise values of NFL teams. Dallas sat at the peak with a valuation of $3.2 billion. It reminded me of a conversation I had years ago with Jerry Jones when he commented "the two most valuable franchises in the NFL will be Dallas and whatever franchise is in Los Angeles."

That clearly is the potential for the Los Angeles franchise. Ironically, St. Louis sits at the bottom of the valuations at $930 million, and Oakland is not much higher at $970 million. Both franchises have histories in Southern California. Noth franchises have the ability to move. Both franchises would immediately double their value.

It is time for the political and business structure in Southern California to unite to facilitate the return of NFL football. The time is now.

As the Washington Redskins' name debate drags on, team owner Dan Snyder continues to lose support.

The editorial board of The Washington Post announced Friday that the newspaper will no longer use the word 'Redskins' in its section.

“While we wait for the NFL to catch up with public opinion and common decency we have decided not to use the slur ourselves except when it is essential for clarity or effect," the board said in a statement.

The editorial board is separate from the news-gathering portion of the paper, which includes the sports section. There is no ban on the word in those parts of the paper.

“The Post's newsroom and the editorial page operate independently of each other," executive editor Marty Baron said. "Standard operating policy in the newsroom has been to use the names that established institutions choose for themselves. That remains our policy, as we continue to vigorously cover controversy over the team’s name and avoid any advocacy role on this subject.”

The editorial board's opposition to the name 'Redskins' can be traced to March 5, 1992, in a piece called "The Redskin Issue." That same day, a sportswriter named Tony Kornheiser addressed the issue in the sports section.

In Friday's statement, the editorial board applauded referee Mike Carey, who recently revealed he requested not to officiate Redskins games due to the name. "We were impressed this week by the quiet integrity of Mike Carey," the editorial board said.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office delivered a hefty knock on Snyder and the team name when it canceled the Redskins' trademark registration in June. The name has been condemned by a variety of journalists, athletes and politicians, including President Barack Obama.

Slate, the online magazine that is owned by the Post, banned use of the word Redskins entirely last year.

Other publications that no longer use Redskins include the Seattle Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Kansas City Star and Detroit News.

The Oregonian in Portland was one of the first to institute the ban in 1992.

Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback site, which is part of Sports Illustrated, stopped using the word last year.

Two notable NFL TV analysts, Phil Simms of CBS and Tony Dungy of NBC, have said they will not being using the word on the air.

The team is scheduled to open the 2014 season on Sept. 7 at Houston with its name and logo intact.

In Monday night’s nationally televised preseason game between Cleveland Browns and Washington, rookie QB Johnny Manziel flipped his middle finger toward the Redskins player bench. The telecast had the second highest overnight rating ever for an ESPN preseason game, and the gesture ran repeatedly on local news and spawned a series of Internet memes. It reinforced the imagery of Manziel as a spoiled rebel, operating to the beat of his own drummer. He had not played particularly well in the game and he continues to create more obstacles to a smooth entry into the NFL.

The Browns have now named Brian Hoyer as their starter for opening day. This may well have been their plan all the way along. It is certainly easier to go with a veteran who was playing well last year before injury. Had they named Manziel the starter and he then had performance issues, replacing him would have been a nightmare that might have broken his own, and the team’s, confidence in him. The supporting offensive cast for the Browns is not especially strong. Their best wide receiver, Josh Gordon, will be suspended, possibly for the whole season. Their running backs are untested. It is likely to be a season of frustration for whoever quarterbacks the Browns.

This all may be a blessing in disguise for Manziel’s career. Traditionally, rookie quarterbacks sat behind older, wiser starters for a year or two. They learned from the older quarterback. The transition from college to professional football is challenging. The game is faster, the playbook more complex, the defenses are confusing, the degree of separation is smaller, and the players are better. Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers sat behind Brett Favre for three years and has had a sensational career since.

The NFL saw Tommy Kramer and Wade Wilson on the same Viking roster. Doug Williams was backed up by Jay Schroeder for the Skins. Joe Montana was backed up by Steve Young and Steve Bono. All the non-starters benefited from it. The salary cap changed all that. A first-round rookie with a high cap contract could no longer sit behind a highly salaried vet – there simply was not enough cap room.

The freakish success of Colts’ Andrew Luck, Redskins’ Robert Griffin III and Seahawks’ Russell Wilson created the illusion that it was easy for a rookie to step right in his first season with field command. The reality is that it takes time to read defenses correctly -- this only comes with experience. The Seahawks have an outstanding running game and defense -- exactly what Ben Roethlisberger benefited from his rookie year. Without these components, it is difficult to succeed in the first year.

Johnny Manziel has a unique ability to extend plays and bring his team back from a deficit. He will need to learn how to operate from the pocket. Hopefully enough time will have passed from his Monday night gesture so that he is not target No. 1 for every defensive player in the NFL.

Johnny Manziel flipped off the Washington Redskins bench. That is a fact. Cameras caught the Cleveland Browns' second-string (for the time being) quarterback throwing up a middle finger on Monday Night Football. Manziel subsequently said he made a "lapse of judgement."

The obvious question is "why?" Why would a young man whose maturity has been questioned put another dent in his résumé?

An easy answer would be it is part of Manziel's act. Dennis Rodman used to frequent Las Vegas to keep up his reputation. Metta World Peace is changing his name for a second time. Chad Johnson trained with an MLS club during the NFL lockout.

Again, that would be the easy answer. But based on this clip, Manziel did not seem to take pride in his decision. Instead, he looks frustrated he yet again had started a fire.

The bearer of the news is Rob McBurnett, the Browns communication coordinator. In other words, he's the man being paid to babysit Johnny Football.

It is certainly not uncommon for NFL players to get heated on the field. However, Manziel will need to learn to either harness that anger toward his own play or release away from the cameras (which could be tough since he is a focal point). This was only Manziel's second NFL preseason game, but he is off to a poor start.

The Little League World Series is a beautiful event. For 11 days, 11- to 13-year-olds are the focus. Tens of thousands of fans pile into Williamsport, Pa., while millions more watch on television. The spectacle always delivers feel-good stories from the United States and international teams.

The biggest story this year is Mo'ne Davis, a 13-year-old female phenom from Taney Little League in Philadelphia. Davis pitched a two-hit shutout while striking out eight batters in Taney's opening game against Nashville. She played shortstop, third base and pitcher in Taney's second game, a win over Pearland, Texas.

As Davis' story of "girl striking out the boys with blazing fastball" has gained steam, she has picked up widespread media attention as well as support from celebrities on social media.

However, not all of Davis-mania is positive. On Monday, Darren Rovell pointed out a piece of Davis' story that taints the feel-good parts.

Yes, that is right. A user on eBay, "raisethesong" (affiliated with Raise The Song collectibles) is trying to sell a Mo'ne Davis-signed baseball for just under $200 (over $200 when you add the $5.99 shipping). The item is said to be located in the central Pennsylvania town of Bellefonte. The description includes what appears to be a very dimly lit picture of Davis signing the Little League Baseball. The user guarantees "my personal Certificate of Authenticity."

While the baseball Rovell tweeted about has a "buy it now" price of $199.99, Raise The Song also lists a signed Davis baseball for bidding. As of 1:25 p.m. ET, the ball was listed at $31.00 after six bids (also $5.99 shipping).

Another user, "patonyfan," is selling a signed Davis baseball with the supposed signature "Mo'ne #3" inscription. At 1:25 p.m. ET, this ball was also at $31.00, but with a $6.50 shipping fee.

Other Mo'ne memorabilia includes an autographed pink helmet (with picture authenticity) for $26.00 after four bids ($9.99 shipping) put up by Raise The Song. Like the signed baseball from the user, the listing includes a picture of Davis making the signing.

There are also signed pictures of Davis for $21.30 after three bids and $9.99 with zero bids. A Taney team picture signed by the entire Mid-Atlantic squad is up to $61.00 after ten bids.

Of course, this all digs into a dangerous field of play involving Little League Baseball players. Coaches, parents and Little League administrators can only protect the children so much. Davis' innocent autographs, making her feel like a major leaguer, have turned into business pieces. Playing for the love of the game is clouded by shady entrepreneurs.

None of this is Davis' fault. She is a 13-year-old trying to propel her team of middle schoolers to Little League glory. She gets free baseball equipment and clothes, the experience of playing at Williamsport and some face time on ESPN out of the journey. Royalties are not included.

For now. It is impossible to ignore the presence of Davis-related items on eBay as a link to the continuing debate over athletic amateurism. While eBay capitalists are making money off Davis, she gets nothing. While ESPN puts her face on its ads for the Little League World Series, Davis makes nothing. While Little League Baseball sells Mid-Atlantic merchandise to fans across the world, Davis makes nothing.

It sounds ridiculous to argue for Little League players to make money, but when signed baseballs are being sold in triple-figures, it has to be mentioned. Johnny Manziel can oblige.

Mo'ne Baseball has arrived.

In three seasons, Nebraska wide receiver Kenny Bell has 134 recptions, 1,901 receiving yards and 15 receiving touchdowns. He has been selected to first team All-Big Ten, Big Ten All-Freshman Team and the Nebraska Scholar-Athlete Honor Roll.

But for a week and a half, Bell did not have utilities.

"I went without power for like a week and half," Bell told CBS Sports' Dennis Dodd. "I didn't go home. I stayed up at the stadium until I would go to sleep because I couldn't do anything at my house.

Bell, an ethnic studies major, says he got a job to pay for the bills–working as a bartender at "The Bar" in Lincoln. Bell's hours included some double shifts from 3 p.m. to 3 a.m., logging 30 hours certain weeks.

"What kind of 22-year old man, is like, 'Hey Mom [I need money]'?" Bell said. "I want to say, 'I'm a man. I take care of myself.'"

The lights in the residence Bell shares with Cornhuskers defensive tackle Tobi Okuyemi have been back on since then thanks to the paychecks from The Bar.

In April, Bell told the Associated Press he was approached by a fellow Big Ten star, former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, about spearheading an effort to bring unionization to Nebraska. Bell and Colter both graduated from Colorado high schools in 2010.


"A lot of guys don't really know -- not just in our locker room, but across the country -- what a union necessarily entails," Bell told the AP. "I'll tell you one thing: You can't afford to pay dues because we don't have enough money to eat sometimes. I think a lot of research needs to be done on behalf of the players before they just jump into it."

Bell is the son of Ken Bell, Sr., a four-year NFL player with the Denver Broncos. His stepfather, Dan Campbell, is a successful computer software security salesman. Bell admits he has financial backing, but does not think that should cloud his judgment of players' rights.

"I'm from affluence," he said. "They could give me money if I needed it, but that's embarrassing, you know?"

Bell starts the 2014 on the Big Ten writers' preseason All-Big Ten Team and has NFL draft potential. Colter led CAPA to a victory in court, recognizing the right of Northwestern football players to unionize, although reports suggest they voted against it. Bell and Nebraska have taken no steps to replicate Colter's actions.

Dodd's article does not mention a specific time Bell bartended, but tweets from the Lincoln imply Bell may have worked last winter.

One thing that is for certain is Bell is a highly educated college football player of elite talent who takes interest in players' rights. While he has not taken union level actions -- yet -- he continues to voice a loud opinion.

As he told Dodd:

"Let's start with how blessed we are and how lucky we are," Bell said. "We get an opportunity. We get an education. We get more connections than anyone could ever ask for, which is all fantastic.

"But when you talk about capitalism, people use the word 'exploited' because we're athletes. People don't come to the game to watch the coaches on the sideline. They come to watch the players play the game.

"The fact that guys barely have enough money to pay their bills, get gas, can't really take their girlfriends out for a movie very often. It's a tough thing when you talk about multibillion-dollar TV contracts."

Bell's senior campaign starts in Lincoln against Florida Atlantic on Aug. 30. The Cornhuskers travel to Colter's old school, Northwestern, on Oct. 18. Colter is now a member of the Minnesota Vikings as a wide receiver.

FIFA is (allegedly) a dirty organization. As controversy about having a World Cup in Qatar continues, FIFA finds itself under fire for a plethora of other issues (see: Luis Suarez).

One of those issues is the 2015 Women's World Cup in which Sepp Blatter and his staff appear to be treating females like guinea pigs. FIFA wants to convert the grass fields in Canada, the host, to artificial turf. It is no secret soccer players do not like playing on turf, which makes it telling that this "experiment" is not coming at men's World Cup or men's UEFA Champions League competition.

In a New York Times interview published Wednesday, U.S. Women's National Team all-time leading goal scorer Abby Wambach said:

"It's a gender issue through and through ... This being the pinnacle of our sport, we feel like we should be treated just like the men."

Wambach is one of more than 4,000 people to sign a petition advising FIFA to use grass fields rather than turf. The list includes over 50 national-team players from a dozen nations. The players' lawyers are threatening taking the conflict to court.

Wambach and other players simply do not want to deal with a turf surface. Naturally, grass is softer and safer, although it is more difficult to maintain. Injuries can be considered more likely on turf than grass. Turf also changes the entire strategy of a match.

The female soccer players have support from two big-time American basketball players. Kobe Bryant tweeted this image of USWNT forward Sydney Leroux after playing on turf:

Kevin Durant added a Facebook post:

The 2015 Women's World Cup kicks off June 6 with two matches in Edmonton and ends July 5 in Vancouver. Japan won the previous World Cup in 2011 by beating the United States by shootout in the championship match in Germany.

Of course, all is now subject to a lawsuit.

Syndicate content