Scholarship Essay Competition

Scholarship opportunities for law students pursuing careers in sports and entertainment law. Explore the competition and apply.

Scholarship Essay Competition

Scholarship opportunities for law students pursuing careers in sports and entertainment law. Explore the competition and apply.

The Essay Competition is an annual competition that encourages original and innovative research and writing on industry topics. An applicant may select one (1) of the two issues below for submission.

Questions: info@besla.org

Submission Deadline:
September 27, 2026
(11:59 PM EST)

Submission Guidelines

Applicants are required to submit original works of authorship. BESLA specifically forbids any plagiarism or the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) or any AI tools to generate content in completing any scholarship application, including essay submissions. Any submissions that violate these requirements will be automatically disqualified and the applicant will be ineligible to apply for future BESLA scholarships.

All BESLA scholarship essays and memos should adhere to the following guidelines:

  • Written legal memorandum
  • Page Limit: Five (5) pages
  • Font: Times New Roman
  • Font Size: Twelve (12) point
  • Spacing: Double-spaced
  • Each essay should include relevant case law, law review, statutory, and/or other source citations.
  • Citations will not be counted as part of the five (5) page essay limit
  • Citations may only be included as endnotes (citations should not be included as footnotes)

Only completed submissions will receive scholarship consideration. Submissions are considered complete when they contain all the following materials:

Essay Requirements

  • Completed BESLA Scholarship Essay Application
  • The essay that answers all posed questions
  • One (1) page resume/CV
  • A personal biography not to exceed two hundred fifty (250) words
  • A business professional headshot (high-resolution images highly encouraged)

Essay Questions

Essay Question #1:

Sunset & Company (“Sunset”), a U.S.-based film studio, recently completed production of a major motion picture in Russia. The company hired local crews, leased filming locations from government-affiliated entities, and obtained filming permits from regional and national authorities. Several production expenses were paid through third-party intermediaries because of restrictions affecting international banking transactions.

During production, local consultants advised Sunset that unofficial payments were commonly used to expedite permits and government approvals. Sunset authorized payments to consultants for “government relations” and “administrative assistance,” although company records do not clearly identify the ultimate recipients.

Following completion of the film, the U.S. government opened investigations into whether Sunset violated U.S. sanctions and anti-corruption laws.

Sunset argues that the motion picture constitutes protected artistic expression and qualifies as an “informational material” under federal sanctions law. The company contends that restrictions on international film production undermine cultural exchange and chill creative expression. Government officials respond that economic sanctions are necessary to advance national security and foreign policy interests and that entertainment companies should not receive special exemptions from laws designed to protect the United States.

Prepare a memorandum addressing the following questions:

  1. What legal risks does Sunset Pictures face under U.S. sanctions and anti-corruption laws?
  2. Should films and other expressive works receive broader exemptions under U.S. sanctions laws, or should entertainment companies remain subject to the same restrictions as other industries operating in sanctioned countries?
  3. Congress has exempted certain informational materials from sanctions restrictions, while the government continues to regulate many commercial transactions necessary to create those works. Does this framework appropriately balance artistic expression, intellectual property interests, and national security concerns?


Support your analysis with relevant law, policy considerations, and examples from the sports and entertainment industries.

(Laws considered: (1) OFAC/FCPA sanctions and compliance; (2) Berman Amendment; (3) public policy as it pertains to sports and entertainment law)

Essay Question #2:

The National Professional Basketball League (NPBL) requires all players to wear biometric devices during games and practices. The devices collect real-time physiological information, including heart rate variability, fatigue levels, recovery metrics, and stress indicators.

The League licenses this data to sports betting companies and broadcast partners. Although the League states that the information is anonymized, researchers demonstrate that individual players can be identified by combining the data with publicly available game footage and player tracking information.

Several teams subsequently rely on biometric information during contract negotiations, citing injury risk and fatigue trends to justify reduced salaries and shorter guaranteed contracts.

The following provisions appear in the Collective Bargaining Agreement:

Article 14 – Health Monitoring
Teams may require players to wear approved biometric devices during games and practices for purposes relating to player health, safety, and performance.

Article 18 – League Data Rights
The League shall own all statistical, tracking, and performance data generated during League activities and may license such data for commercial purposes.

Article 22 – Player Medical Information
Players retain all rights in their personal medical records and health information. Such information shall remain confidential absent player consent.

Article 31 – Grievance Procedure
Any dispute arising from the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be resolved through the grievance and arbitration procedures established herein.

A group of players files suit alleging: (1) breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (2) violations of applicable biometric privacy laws; and (3) a declaration that players own their biometric information.

Draft a memorandum addressing the following:

  1. Analyze whether the players’ claims are governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and whether the dispute must be resolved through arbitration.
  2. Evaluate whether the League’s collection, licensing, and use of player biometric information violates the players’ contractual or privacy rights.
  3. Discuss who should own and control player biometric data—the players, the teams, or the League—and the policy implications of each approach.


Support your analysis with relevant case law, statutes, labor law principles, and scholarly authority where appropriate.

Essay Question #3:

Sublime Werks, Inc. (“Sublime”) is a digital media company that develops short-form video content for social media and streaming platforms. The company contracts with hundreds of creators who maintain their own social media identities while producing content under the Sublime brand.

In 2024, Sublime entered into a three-year exclusive “Creator Partnership Agreement” with Maya Brooks, a California-based political and lifestyle creator known online as “MayaMoves.” The agreement classified Maya as an independent contractor and provided her with a monthly stipend, production support, and a percentage of advertising and sponsorship revenue.

The agreement required Maya to: (1) produce no fewer than two videos per week; (2) attend weekly content meetings; (3) comply with Sublime branding guidelines; (4) obtain approval before entering sponsorship agreements; and (5) refrain from creating content for competing agencies or platforms.

Initially, Maya produced lifestyle and commentary videos. However, her audience grew substantially after she began posting short “street interview” videos discussing topics such as dating, gender roles, and workplace expectations among young adults. The videos generated significantly higher engagement and advertising revenue than her previous content.

At the same time, Sublime secured sponsorship agreements for Maya with two national brands. One sponsor emphasized messages of workplace equity and inclusion, while the other marketed products using more traditional family-oriented values. Sublime instructed Maya to continue producing politically and socially engaging content because of its strong performance, while also directing her to avoid viewpoints that might alienate either sponsor.

Maya alleges that Sublime routinely reviewed proposed content, suggested topics, requested edits, and discouraged certain viewpoints that could affect sponsor relationships. After several videos generated public criticism from both advocacy groups and commentators, Sublime suspended the content and instructed Maya to return to less controversial material that aligned with the Sublime’s brand standards.

Maya terminated the agreement and filed suit, alleging that she was improperly classified as an independent contractor and was, in fact, an employee. She argues that Sublime controlled her schedule, sponsorship opportunities, public image, and creative decisions. Sublime denies liability, arguing that creators retain substantial creative independence and that sponsor management and brand oversight are common features of talent representation.

Draft a memorandum addressing the following:

  1. Analyze whether Maya should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor under applicable labor law tests.
  2. Evaluate whether Sublime’s control over Maya’s content, sponsorship relationships, and public image supports employee status.
  3. Discuss the implications that worker classification in the creator economy may have for digital media companies, talent agencies, and content creators.

Support your analysis with relevant legal authority, including, but not limited to:
     a. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992);
     b. Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947);
     c. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018); and
     d. California Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5).

Submission Deadline: September 27, 2026 (11:59 PM EST)

Past Scholarship Recipients

2024

1st Place Essay Competition Winner

Shonette Greene

Hofstra University Maurice A. Dean School of Law

2024

2nd Place Essay Competition Winner

Kennedy Byrd

University of Miami School of Law

2023

1st Place Essay Competition Winner

Grace Jackson

Pepperdine Caruso School of Law

2023

2nd Place Essay Competition Winner

Ricky Panayoty

Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School

2022

1st Place Essay Competition Winner

Dominique Fontenette Davillier

University of Miami School of Law

2022

2nd Place Essay Competition Winner

Baron Ammons, II

Southern University Law Center

Stay Connected with BESLA

Get updates on events, opportunities, and initiatives shaping our community.

© 2026 Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association (BESLA) All Rights Reserved. BESLA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.