Ben serves as Commissioner of his fantasy league. Following advice from this Court, he implemented a punishment draft—a mechanism we have praised as among the best innovations in modern fantasy football governance. Ben selected from the available punishments “hot ones audition tape,” a reference to the popular YouTube series in which celebrities are interviewed while consuming increasingly spicy chicken wings. Ben never defined the punishment’s precise parameters. He finished tied for last place. His league now disputes what completing a “hot ones audition tape” requires.
The questions presented are specific: Must Ben purchase all authentic Hot Ones brand sauces? Must he answer questions from league members in a simulated interview format? Must he submit the resulting video to host Sean Evans? We hold that Ben must create a video in the Hot Ones format—ten wings with progressively hot sauces, answering questions from his nine league-mates—and submit it to the show. However, he need not purchase the full suite of expensive authentic sauces. He must use at least one genuinely punishing hot sauce, specifically Da Bomb or equivalent heat level. He may use cheaper alternatives for the remaining wings.
I
The factual background requires little elaboration. Ben implemented a punishment draft based on this Court’s advice—specifically, the suggestion from a listener that transformed punishment systems across fantasy football. See In re League Punishment Eligibility Standards, 24-0850-3 (2024) (describing punishment draft as serving “critical functions in maintaining league integrity and competitive incentives”). League members submitted punishment ideas. Ben, as the punishment draft winner, selected “hot ones audition tape” from the available options.
Critically, Ben “never fleshed out what that actually meant.” He explains: “I picked the punishment hot ones audition tape but we never fleshed out what that actually meant.” For years Ben “finished top four most years”—a respectable performance placing him safely distant from punishment eligibility. But this season he tied for last place. The group chat immediately erupted with competing interpretations of his obligation.
One friend insists Ben must “actually buy all the hot sauces from the show” and “eat them on camera.” Another demands that Ben “answer questions from each of the other members and pretend like I’m on the show.” A third front has opened regarding “whether I need to address the tape to Sean Evans and whether I have to send it to him.” Ben, demonstrating the wisdom that comes with serving as Commissioner, defers to this Court rather than unilaterally interpreting his own punishment obligations.
II
We begin with a principle that pervades our punishment jurisprudence: punishments must be enforced as specified, without post hoc softening or exception-carving that undermines their deterrent value. See League v. Scott, 23-1009-1 (2023) (“leagues must enforce their punishments or the entire punishment system collapses”). When a league adopts a punishment, league members accept that finishing last will carry specified consequences. Those consequences must be honored.
But this case presents the inverse problem: what happens when the punishment’s parameters were never “fleshed out” before adoption? Ben selected “hot ones audition tape” as his potential punishment but defined none of its requirements. Now that he faces performance, competing factions advance maximalist and minimalist interpretations. We must determine which elements constitute essential requirements and which represent optional elaborations.
Our analysis proceeds in three steps. First, we identify what “hot ones audition tape” means by reference to the television program it invokes. Second, we apply principles of reasonableness to prevent economic costs from dwarfing league stakes. Third, we balance the punishment’s deterrent purpose—it must be genuinely unpleasant—against the prohibition on post hoc expansion beyond what the stated punishment fairly encompasses.
III
The phrase “hot ones audition tape” invokes a specific cultural reference: the YouTube series “Hot Ones,” hosted by Sean Evans, in which celebrities are interviewed while eating ten progressively spicy chicken wings. The format has three essential elements: (1) consuming ten wings with increasingly hot sauces; (2) answering questions during consumption; and (3) the interview format that structures the experience. These elements define what makes “Hot Ones” recognizable as distinct from simply “eating hot wings.”
An “audition tape” for Hot Ones would replicate this format in pursuit of appearing on the show. It would demonstrate that the auditioner can handle the heat while remaining coherent enough to answer questions entertainingly. The tape would be submitted to the show’s producers or host for consideration. These inferences follow naturally from the punishment’s stated terms.
We therefore hold that Ben must: (1) create a video featuring himself eating ten chicken wings with hot sauce; (2) answer one question from each of his nine league-mates while eating (the tenth wing can be consumed in silence or while addressing the camera); (3) arrange the wings in ascending heat order to replicate the show’s progressive structure; and (4) submit the completed video to Sean Evans or the Hot Ones production team.
These requirements flow directly from what “hot ones audition tape” means. A video without questions would be merely “eating hot wings on camera.” A video without submission would be “hot ones recreation” but not “audition tape.” A video without progressive heat would fail to capture the show’s essential format. Each element is necessary to satisfy the punishment as specified.
IV
We turn to the most contested issue: must Ben purchase the authentic Hot Ones brand sauces used on the show? The full set costs approximately $120. As Chief Justice Heifetz observed, “if the buy-in for this league is ten dollars there’s a chance the hot sauces are collectively more than the pot for the winner.” This economic reality cannot be ignored.
We have never held that punishments may impose financial costs exceeding the league’s buy-in or prize pool. Such a requirement would transform last-place finishes from embarrassing failures into financial catastrophes. In leagues with $10 or $20 buy-ins—often casual leagues among friends or coworkers—requiring $120 in sauce purchases would make the punishment cost six to twelve times the league’s entire financial stakes. That outcome is absurd and unsupportable.
We therefore hold that authentic Hot Ones brand sauces are not required where their cost would be excessive relative to league stakes. Ben may substitute cheaper hot sauces—Cholula, Tabasco, store brands—for most of the wings. If Ben’s league-mates wish to fund authentic sauce purchases, they may do so voluntarily. But Ben cannot be compelled to spend $120 to complete a punishment in a league where such expenditure would dwarf the financial stakes.
However—and this qualification is critical—Ben must use at least one genuinely punishing hot sauce. As Justice Horlbeck emphasized, Ben “has to buy da bomb.” Da Bomb Beyond Insanity, a sauce featured on Hot Ones and notorious for its brutal heat, costs approximately $10-15. This single authentic purchase is mandatory.
Why? Because without at least one genuinely hot sauce, the “punishment” becomes merely eating ten chicken wings with mild condiments—hardly a punishment at all. As Chief Justice Heifetz observed, if Ben uses only mild sauces then “the punishment for fantasy is oh you have to like fucking eat chicken wings that aren’t hot sounds kind of sick.” A pleasant wing-eating session does not satisfy punishment obligations.
The Da Bomb requirement ensures genuine discomfort. Justice Horlbeck described his personal experience: “it was so hot that chris called his parents he didn’t know why he just called his parents.” That level of heat—painful, memorable, potentially tear-inducing—separates actual punishment from performative video-making. Ben must experience at least one wing at this heat level.
Our holding therefore balances competing considerations. Full authentic sauce purchases would impose excessive costs. But zero authentic sauces would eliminate the punishment’s deterrent effect. Requiring one authentic punishing sauce (Da Bomb) provides a middle path: Ben experiences genuine discomfort without facing financial obligations that dwarf his league’s stakes.
V
Ben must replicate the show’s ascending heat structure. He cannot place Da Bomb on wing one and coast through nine mild wings. As Justice Horlbeck observed, “you can’t have 10 da bombs”—both because the cost would be prohibitive and because “the whole point is that you lead up to it.” Wings one through six may use inexpensive sauces of Ben’s choosing. At least one of wings seven through ten must feature Da Bomb or equivalent heat.
The question requirement follows from the show’s interview format. Hot Ones is not merely “watching someone eat hot wings”—it is watching someone try to maintain composure while answering questions. Ben’s nine league-mates should each submit one question. Ben must attempt coherent answers on camera even as the heat intensifies. He may recruit a friend to play interviewer or address the camera directly—either satisfies the format.
Finally, the phrase “audition tape” implies submission for consideration. An audition never submitted is merely a private performance. Chief Justice Heifetz was explicit: Ben must “send it to hot ones.” Ben must submit his completed video to Sean Evans or the Hot Ones production team through whatever channels are available, with proof of submission provided to his league. Sean Evans will almost certainly not respond. That is not the point. The point is completing the full audition process—and adding the mild embarrassment of submitting his suffering to strangers.
* * *
Ben selected “hot ones audition tape” from his league’s punishment menu. He now faces performance. We have clarified what performance requires: ten wings, ascending heat, Da Bomb on at least one of the final four, nine questions from league-mates answered on camera, and submission to Sean Evans with proof provided to the league. Ben will experience genuine discomfort. He will not face financial ruin.
A lesson for future punishment drafts: define your terms. When selecting punishments, specify the requirements with sufficient detail that no ambiguity remains. Ben’s league learned this lesson the hard way. Clear rules prevent the need for Fantasy Court intervention—and ensure that league members understand exactly what fate awaits them should they finish last.
Punishment parameters clarified. It is so ordered.