Two league members reached the championship game in their league’s inaugural “vase era”—the first year the league instituted a trophy to be engraved with the winner’s name. Before the championship commenced, the two finalists agreed to bench their entire rosters to force a 0-0 tie and split the prize money equally. They executed this plan. The league distributed the funds as agreed. Both competitors now seek to have their names engraved on the vase. The Commissioner has refused, maintaining that no official winner has been crowned. A rule has been adopted to prevent such conduct in future seasons.
We hold that the competitors’ names do not go on the vase. Championship trophies commemorate competitive achievement. These competitors achieved nothing but mutual surrender. They got the money. They may not also claim the glory.
I
The factual record is undisputed. Before the championship game, the two finalists reached an agreement: they would bench their entire rosters, force a 0-0 tie, and split the prize money down the middle. Both competitors executed this plan. Neither fielded a single player. The matchup ended 0-0. The league distributed the prize money equally to both participants.
The competitors now demand that both their names be engraved on the vase. Some league members find this “the most chicken shit thing in the world.” Others view it as “a funny piece of lore to add to what will hopefully be a lifelong league.” The Commissioner has held firm, refusing to engrave any names on the grounds that “by his book, there has been no official winner yet in this league in the vase era.” Still others want both names engraved with an asterisk noting the circumstances.
We begin with a simple observation: these competitors did not compete. Competition requires that participants field rosters and allow player performance to determine outcomes. Sitting every player is the antithesis of competition. It is forfeiture—or more precisely, mutual forfeiture by agreement. When two championship participants agree not to play, they have declined the championship itself.
II
This Court has confronted similar conduct in prior cases. In Sean v. League, 20-1338-1 (2020), two regular-season opponents coordinated to bench their entire lineups and force a tie. Both teams faced the risk of losing and falling in the playoff standings, so both independently wanted the tie to preserve their playoff positioning. We held that such conduct constituted permissible strategic roster management because “each team acts in pursuit of its own independent strategic interest in preserving playoff positioning.”
This case is different in two critical respects. First, Sean involved a regular-season matchup where playoff seeding was at stake. Both teams had legitimate competitive reasons to prefer a tie over the risk of a loss. Here, we confront the championship game itself—the culmination of the entire season. There are no future playoff implications to consider. There is no risk to manage. There is only the binary question of who wins the championship.
Second, and more fundamentally, the competitors here agreed in advance to split the prize money. This transforms the conduct from parallel strategic decision-making into a coordinated transaction. In Dave v. Joe, 21-1223-2 (2021), we held that “lineup decisions may not be transacted for consideration” and that “trading a player for a win crosses a bright line that separates permissible gamesmanship from impermissible collusion.” While the competitors here did not trade players, they transacted something more fundamental: they agreed to share the championship prize in exchange for mutual non-competition.
The agreement to split the money is dispositive. Had the two competitors independently decided—without coordination—to bench their rosters out of spite, laziness, or some other individual motivation, we might analyze the conduct differently. But they did not act independently. They coordinated their conduct expressly to divide the spoils rather than compete for them. This is not strategic gamesmanship. It is an agreement to decline competition itself.
III
The competitors argue they should be treated identically: if both forfeit, both should be recognized. This argument has superficial appeal but collapses upon examination. The proper analogy is not to a tie in competitive play—where both teams field rosters and player performance happens to result in equal scoring. The proper analogy is to two boxers who agree not to throw punches, or two chess players who agree to sit silently until time expires without moving pieces.
When competitors agree not to compete, they have declined the very thing that justifies championship recognition. As we stated in Warner v. His Own Conscience, 24-0798-2 (2024), active roster manipulation to avoid competition “violates principles of competitive integrity and fair dealing.” While that case involved one manager manipulating his spouse’s roster, the principle applies with equal force here: deliberate non-competition violates the fundamental premise of championship play.
Consider what the competitors seek. They want their names on the inaugural vase—the first entry in what the league hopes will become a permanent record of champions. They want future league members to see their names when the vase is passed around at drafts and league gatherings. They want the recognition that comes with championship victory. But they did not achieve championship victory. They achieved championship avoidance. They negotiated a settlement rather than competing for a title.
More fundamentally, they already received their reward. The prize money has been distributed. Both competitors got paid. They negotiated exactly the outcome they wanted: equal division of financial rewards without the risk of loss. Having secured that financial reward through mutual agreement rather than competitive achievement, they now seek the additional symbolic reward of trophy recognition. That, they may not have.
As one of us observed during oral argument: “They got the money. They got what they wanted. They got the money.” The competitors cannot have both the financial reward and the symbolic reward when they obtained the former by declining to compete for the latter. Championships mean something precisely because competitors risk loss in pursuit of victory. These competitors eliminated that risk through coordination. They may not now claim the honors that accrue to those who actually competed.
IV
We turn to the appropriate remedy. This Court has previously held that “leagues possess discretion to memorialize championship victories in whatever manner reflects league culture and values.” League v. Andrew, 24-0796-1 (2024). That discretion extends not merely to how championships are memorialized, but whether particular outcomes warrant memorialization at all.
The Commissioner’s instinct is sound: no names should be engraved because no legitimate competition occurred. But this creates an unfortunate gap in the trophy’s historical record. The inaugural vase era would show no champion, potentially leaving future league members confused about what happened that first year. The competitors’ proposal—both names with or without an asterisk—is equally unsatisfactory, as it grants them exactly the recognition they seek despite having declined to compete.
We approve two alternative remedies, leaving the choice to the league’s discretion. The primary remedy, if logistically feasible, is to engrave the names of every other league member—all eight competitors who were eliminated before the championship—in small font on the vase for that season. This approach accomplishes several objectives: it preserves the historical record by showing that something unusual occurred; it honors the league members who actually competed throughout the season; and it denies the championship participants the recognition they seek while making clear through omission that they forfeited their claim to such recognition.
During oral argument, one justice invoked the scene from Ocean’s Eleven where Scott Caan’s character thanks everyone at a wedding reception except his brother. The humor and the sting derive from the deliberate omission—everyone knows who is missing and why. The same principle applies here. Engraving eight names while omitting two sends an unmistakable message: these competitors declined to compete, and the league has declined to recognize them.
If that remedy proves logistically impractical—if the vase cannot accommodate eight names in legible font, or if the engraving costs become prohibitive—then the backup remedy is equally appropriate: decline to commence the vase tradition for the championship in question. Simply start the tradition the following year with the first legitimately competed championship. The inaugural vase era produced no champion worthy of recognition, so the trophy remains blank for that season.
Some might view this as harsh. The competitors, after all, followed the league rules as they existed at the time. No written rule prohibited their conduct. The league has since adopted a rule to prevent recurrence, suggesting the league itself views the conduct as problematic only in hindsight. But the absence of a written rule prohibiting championship forfeiture does not create an affirmative entitlement to championship recognition. The default expectation in any competitive league is that competitors will compete. Those who decline that fundamental obligation forfeit the symbolic rewards of competition, regardless of whether explicit rules address their specific conduct.
* * *
Some leagues might view this conduct as “funny lore” rather than an affront to competitive integrity. Those leagues remain free to memorialize the incident however they see fit. Our holding establishes only that competitors who decline to compete have no entitlement to trophy recognition.
Where, as here, the Commissioner and substantial faction of the league view the conduct as “chicken shit,” and where the competitors already received the financial rewards they negotiated, denying trophy recognition serves an important purpose. It signals that championships are earned through competition, not negotiated through side agreements. Championship trophies commemorate championship competition. Where no competition occurred, no recognition is warranted.
The competitors made their choice. They chose money over glory, certainty over risk, coordination over competition. They got exactly what they bargained for. They may not now demand the additional benefit of championship recognition. You cannot decline to compete for a championship and still claim champion status. You cannot bench every player and still have your name engraved as a winner.
The Commissioner’s position is affirmed. The competitors’ names do not go on the vase.
Petition denied.