I used to write the sports technology roundup at TechGraphs, an internet website that died, and now I am writing the sports law roundup at ALDLAND, an internet website.

Here are the top sports-related legal stories from the past week:

• NCAA transfer rules: A federal trial judge has dismissed a claim by a former Northern Illinois punter, who alleged that the NCAA rule forcing transferring students to sit out of their sport for their first year at their new school violates antitrust laws. That judge rejected an identical claim by a former Weber State football player last fall. Meanwhile, a similar suit filed by a former Northwestern basketball player remains pending in a different court.
• Minor League Baseball wages: In a significant victory for minor-league baseball players who are suing MLB for higher wages and overtime pay, a judge has granted the plaintiffs’ request for class certification, though on a narrower scope than initially requested. Part of the revision in the class definition included a removal of the players’ claims for compensation for offseason training. The certified class covers all players who played in California League, instructional league, or spring training (included extended spring training) games since February 7, 2011, and who had not previously signed a Major-League contract. In addition to fighting these claims in court, MLB has been pursuing a legislative fix. Late last year, MiLB (MLB’s minor-league component) formed a political action committee that appeared targeted at defeating the players’ lawsuit by supporting the Save America’s Pastime Act, a bill designed to create a carve-out in the Fair Labor Standards Act exempting minor-league players from minimum-wage and overtime protections.
• Arena football labor arbitration: The Arena Football League Players Union has sued the AFL because, the union alleges, the league is improperly holding up a player-grievance dispute. By failing to make a required payment to a labor arbitrator, the union claims, the AFL is preventing the arbitrator from releasing his decision and resolving the grievance. The AFLPU complaint also states that the league has not paid other grievance awards and declined to provide financial information explaining why it has been refusing to make payments owed. Meanwhile, the AFL is embroiled in a separate lawsuit in which a former player has alleged that he has “direct evidence” of the league’s intentional refusal to pay expenses related to the former player’s concussion-related injuries. The former player also has asserted that evidence of his specific targeting by the league for injury exists. The AFL is seeking summary judgment in that case, arguing that the former player must pursue his claims under the applicable state workers’ compensation statute, but the player contends that the evidence of intentional misconduct places his claims outside the workers’ compensation regime.

Sports court is in recess.