Petitioner George participates in a fantasy league administered by Commissioner Nick. Three teams in the league share the identical team name “Greg.” One team is operated by a manager actually named Greg. Commissioner Nick operates a second team bearing the name Greg. The identity of the third Greg remains unknown to Petitioner—indeed, Petitioner cannot confidently identify the ownership of all teams in his league despite participating since its formation.
When Petitioner attempted to negotiate a trade with Commissioner Nick, Nick refused to disclose which of the Greg teams belonged to him. Nick eventually provided an answer, but then joked that he actually controlled two teams. Two weeks later, Petitioner discovered that the team Nick had identified as his own actually belonged to the genuine Greg, not Nick. Petitioner now suspects Commissioner Nick may be operating multiple teams under the Greg pseudonym to unfairly advantage his own roster and his wife’s roster. Petitioner seeks an investigation and declaratory judgment regarding team ownership.
We grant the petition for investigation and hold that Commissioner Nick must immediately disclose which team belongs to him and identify the ownership of all league teams. A Commissioner who deliberately misrepresents team ownership when directly questioned violates his fiduciary duty of transparency. If investigation reveals the Commissioner operates multiple teams, such conduct would constitute fraud warranting severe sanctions.
I
We begin with what the hosts termed the “fantasy catfish” problem. Petitioner has participated in this league since its formation, yet he cannot identify who operates all teams. Three teams share the name Greg. One belongs to a manager named Greg. One belongs to Commissioner Nick. The third remains a mystery. As the hosts observed with understandable bewilderment: “How do you not know who’s in your league?”
This is an excellent question. Modern fantasy platforms display team ownership information. Yahoo, ESPN, Sleeper—all show the account name or email address associated with each team. A manager can typically click on any team and view its owner. As one host noted, “you can go in and see like it’s like instagram where you have a handle but also a name you can go in and actually… see the owner of the team.”
Yet Petitioner cannot identify the mysterious third Greg. This raises disturbing possibilities. Perhaps the tenth team has no real owner—Commissioner Nick created a “burner team” to manipulate league competition. Perhaps someone uses a pseudonym Petitioner does not recognize. Or perhaps, as one host colorfully suggested, Petitioner is “a boomer who can’t click on a team and find the email find the person’s name.”
We cannot resolve these factual uncertainties without investigation. But we can and do hold that Petitioner deserves answers. Fantasy leagues depend on transparency regarding basic structural information. Team ownership ranks among the most fundamental: league members must know who they are playing against. When a Commissioner’s conduct creates confusion about this basic information—and particularly when the Commissioner deliberately provides false information when questioned—investigation is warranted.
II
The more troubling aspect of this case involves Commissioner Nick’s deliberate misrepresentation. When Petitioner sought to negotiate a trade with Nick, Nick “wouldn’t give [Petitioner] a straight answer on which team was actually his.” Nick eventually identified a team as his own. But Nick then “joked that he actually had two teams.”
This “upset” Petitioner, as well it should. The possibility that the Commissioner operates two teams—effectively playing against himself while administering the league—would constitute “obviously cheating,” as Petitioner correctly recognizes. Two weeks later, Petitioner discovered that the team Nick had identified as his own “isn’t actually his but the real greg.”
Let us be clear about what happened. Petitioner asked Commissioner Nick a straightforward question: which team is yours? This is not sensitive information. This is not a trade secret. This is basic league structure that every member should know. Commissioner Nick provided an answer—pointing to a specific team. That answer was false. The team Nick identified belonged to someone else.
We have repeatedly held that commissioners occupy fiduciary positions requiring heightened duties of good faith and fair dealing. See Denmark Team Owner v. Commissioner, 25-0717-2 (2025); Andrew v. Commissioner, 24-0830-1 (2024); In re Trade Negotiations with Fantasy Football Novices, 25-0713-1 (2025). In Denmark, we held that “commissioners occupy fiduciary positions prohibiting exploitation of informational advantages over league members” and that commissioners must honor their duties “with scrupulous fidelity.” In Andrew v. Commissioner, 24-0830-1 (2024), we emphasized that commissioners “owe heightened duties of transparency, particularly when their conduct creates appearances of conflict.”
Commissioner Nick violated these duties in the most basic fashion imaginable. He lied about which team was his. This was not a misunderstanding or honest mistake. This was not an ambiguous response subject to interpretation. Commissioner Nick identified a specific team as his own when that team actually belonged to someone else. And before providing this false information, Nick joked that he controlled two teams—a statement that, if true, would constitute fraud.
The Commissioner’s “joke” about controlling two teams cannot be dismissed as mere banter. Combined with his subsequent false identification of his team, this statement raises serious questions about whether Commissioner Nick operates multiple teams in the league. As the hosts observed, this creates a “fantasy catfish situation”—Petitioner may be competing against phantom teams controlled by the Commissioner to manipulate league outcomes.
III
We must address whether the confusion created by three identically named teams itself violates league integrity principles. The hosts found this situation “funny” and saw “no problem with that.” We agree that shared team names constitute permissible gamesmanship. As one host noted, “the ringer league is every[one] very the interesting thing” where multiple managers adopted the same team name for comedic effect.
Shared team names create confusion—sometimes intentionally so—but do not violate competitive integrity provided actual ownership remains clear. If all league members know which manager operates which team despite identical names, no harm occurs. The confusion becomes problematic only when combined with other factors that obscure ownership information, particularly when the Commissioner exploits that confusion.
Here, the three Greg teams would be merely amusing but for Commissioner Nick’s subsequent conduct. The Commissioner used the confusion created by identical team names to mislead Petitioner about which team belonged to him. When questioned directly, Nick refused to answer, then provided false information, and joked about controlling multiple teams. This transforms permissible gamesmanship into potentially fraudulent concealment.
We draw a distinction between (1) creative team naming that creates superficial confusion while actual ownership remains discoverable, and (2) deliberate obfuscation of team ownership that prevents league members from understanding basic league structure. The former is acceptable. The latter is not—particularly when the Commissioner engages in or exploits such obfuscation.
IV
The remedy requires investigation. We cannot determine on this record whether Commissioner Nick operates multiple teams. Petitioner suspects fraud but cannot prove it—in part because he apparently lacks the technical facility to examine team ownership information on the platform, and in part because Commissioner Nick has deliberately misled him.
We order Commissioner Nick to provide immediate disclosure of all team ownership information. Within seven days of this opinion, the Commissioner must send a message to the league group chat (or equivalent league-wide communication channel) identifying each team and its owner. For each of the three Greg teams, the Commissioner must state clearly who operates that team. If the Commissioner operates only one team, he must identify which one. If the mysterious third Greg is a league member Petitioner knows under a different name, the Commissioner must identify that person.
Additionally, the Commissioner must allow any league member who wishes to verify this information by examining the platform’s team ownership records. If the Commissioner has restricted access to such information or manipulated platform settings to obscure ownership, he must restore full transparency. As one host suggested, Petitioner should “do some digging”—but the Commissioner has an affirmative duty to facilitate that digging by providing accurate information and unrestricted access.
If investigation reveals that Commissioner Nick operates multiple teams, the conduct would constitute fraud requiring severe sanctions. Operating multiple teams while serving as Commissioner represents one of the most serious violations of league integrity we can imagine. The Commissioner would be playing against himself, potentially coordinating trades or roster moves between his teams, and manipulating league competition for his own benefit—all while occupying a position of trust that requires him to ensure fair competition among all members.
Such conduct would warrant immediate removal of Commissioner authority at minimum. The league would need to determine appropriate remedies, potentially including: (1) consolidating the multiple teams operated by Nick into a single team; (2) voiding all trades involving teams Nick operates; (3) adjusting standings to account for matchups where Nick played against himself; and (4) requiring Nick to forfeit any prize money or league honors obtained during the period he operated multiple teams.
* * *
We note briefly that modern fantasy platforms make team ownership information readily available—Petitioner should be able to click on each team and view its owner. As the hosts observed with exasperation: “How do you not know who’s in your league?” But Petitioner’s technical limitations do not excuse Commissioner Nick’s misconduct. Commissioners have affirmative duties to provide accurate information when questioned. Even if Petitioner could have discovered the truth himself, Nick’s deliberate provision of false information violates fiduciary duties requiring honest dealing.
Commissioner Nick created this situation through his own misconduct. He refused to answer straightforward questions. He joked about controlling multiple teams. He provided false information. Whether through incompetence or malice, he has created an environment where basic transparency about league structure does not exist. This must end immediately. The Commissioner will disclose all team ownership information within seven days. If he operates multiple teams, he will face severe sanctions. If investigation reveals Petitioner’s concerns are unfounded, the Commissioner will have learned an important lesson about the duty of transparency his position requires.
To Petitioner: click on the teams, find the mysterious third Greg, and report back to this Court with your findings. To Commissioner Nick: you have seven days.
Investigation ordered. Commissioner must disclose all team ownership within seven days.