The recent changes in tax laws have grabbed the headlines but employees of the four branches of the military and the Coast Guard will become part of a new “blended” retirement system passed by Congress in 2016, but effective in 2018.

The 20 or nothing system by which those in service had to stay in service for a generation in order to get any retirement has been modified. The 20 year benefits are reduced by about 20% but that remains the “full retirement” option.  Being added is a defined contribution plan with a match and a continuation bonus after 12 years of service.  In a sense, the new system is more humane as 80% of those who opted for a career in the military did not reach the 20 year mark and then departed without any form of retirement.

Those who participate in the defined contribution plan the government will match 4% of contributions and contribute 1% directly to the account.  Participants vest after two years.

Current employees with 12 or more years can stay with the existing system or opt for the new defined contribution plan by which they will receive 40% of salary after completing 20 years.  If they do remain in the old system, they will receive 50% of final pay as a retirement but they will need to reach the 20 year mark to receive that amount.

The system was changed to reduce government pension obligations and recognize the fact that 4 out of 5 people in the military don’t ever qualify for retirement and some saw the absence of any retirement vehicle other than “20 or nothing” as a reason not to choose a military career in the first place.

Lots of electronic ink has been spilled this week on winners and losers coming out of the Tax Reform Act passed on December 20.  Much of this is fairly speculative but some is simply common sense.

If you are a homeowner, take a look at last year’s bill for real estate taxes, then calculate what the foreseen or unforeseen buyer of your house will pay as a mortgage if he or she finances at 4.0-4.5%.  Realize that, until today, real estate taxes and mortgage interest were entirely deductible subject to “phase out” as adjusted gross income grew higher and higher.  For your purposes, assume no phase out by your imaginary “buyer”.   Now take that number and cap it at $10,000, knowing that this is the maximum you can deduct for real estate taxes and state and local income taxes combined.  If you are looking to buy a home for $1,200,000 in Pennsylvania you have to be earning $250,000 a year and the state and local taxes on that income alone will consume your capped deduction of $10,000 for all forms of tax (again, income and property tax).  So your $15,000 a year in school and municipal taxes is effectively lost as a deduction.  Then we have a new cap on deductions for home mortgages.  That cap is $750,000.  If you put 20% down on your $1,200,000 mansion you will still have a $960,000 mortgage.  Only the interest on $750,000 is deductible.  Thus 22% of your mortgage interest payment will be non-deductible, i.e., paid with after tax income along with your real estate taxes.  If you borrowed at 4.5% your $43,000 in annual deductions for mortgage interest is now capped out at $33,700 and your $15,000 in school/municipal taxes was consumed by your deduction for state and local income taxes.  Surprise!  You have $24,000 in deductions lost to tax reform.  With the new rates this income is effectively taxed at 24% (the old rate was 28%).  The new house is about $500 a month more because of the new tax reform.

The fact is that smart buyers will look at this and conclude that what was once fully deductible is now mostly not.  Will they adjust their offer accordingly? $500 a month is not deal killing in its own right given the numbers we are using, but realize as well that big fancy homes are not selling like they used to because younger buyers have grown up in a world where houses are not appreciating by leaps and bounds.  So if you own a high end house, either in terms of what the mortgage debt will be or the real estate taxes will consume, realize that this tax package is making your house pricier than it was just a day ago.

This last year seemed to be the year for buyers in the $500,000 and lower sellers.  They sold homes quickly and often for premiums.  New home buyers seem scared by big debt and their credit histories often include lots of consumer and student debt.  So they often can’t afford the big house even though they might want to own it.  They also tend towards new construction because they perceive it as less problematic. Sellers may view the buyers as short sighted but they are sellers and not buyers.

Bottom line.  Big, expensive, older homes just took a hit.  They were already on the ropes because they were perceived to be high maintenance.  Now they have the added disadvantage of being more expensive because of the limits on deductions the new tax law provides. As we have said many times, real estate is not the investment we experienced in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or 1990s.  This is truly a new day.

As this is written, the House and Senate this week are scheduled to vote upon a conference report of both houses of Congress which will “reform” tax law in a major way for the first time since the Reagan administration.  In order to secure passage, Congress needed to find some revenue enhancements to offset the tax reductions allocated to corporate and estate tax payers.

As we predicted in November, alimony as a tax deduction to the payor and an element of income to the payee, appears to be one of the revenue enhancers Congress decided to keep in the final bill, with one twist.  The House version ended alimony as a deduction for any decree or agreement formed after December 31, 2017.  The Senate version of the reform bill did not change the rules relating to alimony.  Thus, we anxiously awaited what would come out of the conference report published on Friday, December 15, 2017.  The 1000 page report can be found at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20171218/CRPT-115HRPT-466.pdf . Make certain you have your tax code with you when you start to read as the conference report is only a description of the amendments without the Code.

We did this.  In a nutshell, the Conference Committee adopted the House version but delayed implementation for one year.  Therefore, if you are negotiating or litigating a divorce case and you conclude your matter by agreement or decree before December 31, 2018 (a year from now), the old alimony rules apply.  But, beginning with tax year 2019, any new decree or agreement providing for alimony will be tax free to the recipient and nondeductible by the payor.  As Steve Hurvitz, current head of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Family Law Section observed when he read the bill; “There will be a lot of deals made in 2018.”

The effect of this and other changes in the Tax Code “on the ground” in Courthouses across the state is going to be seismic.  The current support guidelines have deductibility “baked into” the formula.  So, Congress is ripping up those rules.  Other adjustments to gross income that are used to calculate net income for purposes of support are similarly affected.  Mortgage interest is capped at $750,000; state and local tax deductions (including real estate taxes) are also capped at $10,000 ($5,000 if filing separate).  Personal exemptions disappear.  Home equity loans are no longer deductible.  All miscellaneous deductions (e.g., accounting tax prep fees) are eliminated.

The standard deduction is now:

Individuals:  $24,000 if married joint

Heads of Household:  $18,000

Single and Married Separate filers:  $12,000

Indexing rates and other tax items (dependency exemption ) for inflation has been repealed.  The child tax credit is elevated to $2,000 per qualifying child and would not phase out until $200,000 for non-joint filers and $400,000 for joint filers.

One thing would seem to be clear.  If you have a visit to Domestic Relations or a court proceeding in support scheduled for early next year, none of the algorithms in the support calculating software are going to provide a reliable result.  Perhaps the largest adjustment relates to income paid through a qualified partnership, “S” corporation or sole proprietorship.  Twenty (20%) of that qualified income is deductible.  The practical effect of what is or is not deductible is going to be the subject of IRS created regulations.

We have still not seen a copy of the Senate bill although PBS Newshour reports that the final version adopted by the Senate was not circulated in the Senate until late Friday evening and about 5 hours before the vote.  However, it appears that the Senate bill does not change existing alimony rules.  As noted on Listserve last month, the House version does abandon alimony as a deduction effective January 1, 2018.  If you are negotiating an alimony provision you need to be carefully following this issue on behalf of clients.  The one thing which all reports appear to confirm is that tax reform is a freight train that will not be stopped.  The House is scheduled to go out of session on December 14.  The Senate one day later.  The House needs to pass a bill in that time and the Senate and House need to decide on a “common” bill for joint passage and transmission to the President.  The House is circulating a bill that would forestall next week’s government shutdown until December 22, 2017, which would signal that they plan to extend their session.  But, suffice to say, the next ten days should provide plenty of excitement.

Experts and their reports can be an expensive, but necessary, element to many types of cases. This is particularly true in divorce cases, whether they are personal or business divorces. In all cases, it is incumbent on the attorney, client, and expert to all have the same understanding of the scope of the work and expectations on expense. Sometimes, it is not possible to absolutely predict how much litigation will cost or account for every variable or obstacle to a project. Consequently, the costs of a case or preparation of an expert report can exceed the expectations of a client.

A recent Superior Court case dealing with an insurance report highlights the problem created by different understandings and expectations between an attorney and the expert he hired on behalf of his clients. More pointedly, it reaffirms the concept that the engagement letter between an attorney and expert (or client and expert) is an enforceable contract and that an oral estimate of costs will not serve to modify or supersede it.

In the case of MCMP v. Gelman, attorney Bruce Gelman hired Marsico Construction Services and their principal, Louis S. Marsico, to provide expert testimony and a report for an insurance coverage dispute Gelman’s clients had with their homeowner’s insurance carrier.  Marsico provided the report, which was submitted by Gelman to opposing counsel and the insurance company. However, when Marsico provided his invoice to Gelman, it had costs totaling about $30,000.00 – considerably above Gelman’s expectation based on Marsico’s rough estimate of the cost being between $7,500.00 to $10,000.00. Gelman refused to pay the cost and Marsico demanded that he not use the report in the insurance coverage dispute or at trial. Though not noted in the case, the report is considered hearsay unless otherwise stipulated to and if Marsico refused to testify, Gelman would have been unable to move the report into evidence. Once barred from using the report further, Gelman would later claim that by not having a report, the case settled for less than it could have.

Gelman’s appeal tried to assert that the oral estimate provided by Marsico constituted an enforceable, orally accepted express contract term between Gelman and Marsico’s company. The lynchpin of the case, however, is the engagement letter: Gelman agreed to pay Marsico an hourly rate and Marsico was awarded $20,000.00 after a two-day bench trial for breach of contract.

On appeal, the Superior Court rejected Gelman’s arguments and found that the hourly rate engagement was valid and that the estimate provided by Marsico was “off the cuff” and not an express contract term. That point was particularly true since a written engagement letter with specific terms for the firm’s consulting services followed the oral estimate.

The takeaway from the case applies to clients and attorneys: understand the terms of your engagement letter for professional services. Review them and ask questions about any term you do not understand. Addressing a misunderstanding on the precipice of trial leaves you with few options and may severely prejudice the client (another issue altogether). As seen in this case, the courts will not step in to fix your error or accept a modification to the contract that does not strictly conform the Pennsylvania law on express and oral contracts. You do not want to find yourself paying for a report that only collect dusts in the file.

Any American with a pulse knows that 2017 was to be the first overhaul of U.S. Tax Law since 1986.  Until this week, what was circulating through Washington was an 18 page executive summary.  That changed yesterday when the House Republican Tax Policy Committee circulated a draft bill that specified exactly what changes were being proposed.

The draft bill summary merits some review because parts of it will affect most of us.  But the divorce bar was shocked to see that among those tax “loopholes” on the chopping block is the alimony deduction.

Going back to the 16th Constitutional Amendment, which allowed a federal income tax, there has almost always been a deduction to the person paying alimony on the basis that the deduction would be a corresponding income item for the person receiving the payment.  This rule has been uniform.  But, it may be changing now.  Yesterday’s draft proposal has a Section 1309.  It repeals the alimony deduction for agreements and orders entered after December 31, 2017.  What could this mean for you?  You can still make your alimony deal now, but if this law passes and goes into effect, alimony after 2017 that comes out of new agreements or new court orders will not have any transferred tax effect.

Why would Congress care?  After all, payor’s deduction from income becomes payee’s reported income.  Revenue neutral right?  Well, not quite.  Most payors are in higher marginal tax brackets, 31%, 35% and 39.6%.  A dollar of alimony costs the payor 69 cents, 65 cents or 60.4 cents, depending on the bracket.  The payees are usually in 15% or 25% brackets, so the government loses revenue because the payee is reporting the same alimony but paying a lower rate than the payor.  The Republicans say this costs the Treasury about $830 million per annum.  Eliminate the deduction and reduce the deficit or at least help pay for other tax cuts.

In real world terms suppose I enter an agreement on December 31, 2017 and agree to pay $50,000 a year in alimony for five years.  If my tax bracket is 35%, it costs me $32,500.  If my ex-spouse is in a 25% bracket, she reports the $50,000 and gets to keep $37,500 after tax.  The government effectively subsidizes $5,000 of revenue it would otherwise get but for the present scheme.  Under the proposed bill if the agreement is signed on January 1, 2018, I have no deduction and my ex has no income to report.  The payee just got a 25% increase in support based upon the same facts.

Further complicating this is the fact that for more than twenty-five years the Pennsylvania support guidelines have “assumed” that spousal support and unallocated orders of spousal and child support are fully deductible.  The tax assumptions are said to be “cooked into” the guideline numbers themselves.  If the current bill passes, there is some uncooking that needs to be done because the assumptions have now been undone.

Why devote all of this energy to what is just a first draft bill?  After all, this will have to go through many iterations and may change or be eliminated.  True enough with one exception.  2018 is an election year.  Republicans in 2016 told the world that this Congress was going to reform health care and revise the tax laws.  So far, nothing has been accomplished and most legislators will not want to be campaigning this time next year on a “look what wasn’t accomplished” platform.  So, this bill has a good chance of moving very fast and a decade’s long tradition of alimony tax law may recede into the mists of time.  Stay tuned.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness month.  And, earlier this month the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Court (“AOPC”) issued its summary of statistics related to this form of action.

A note of history is in order.  Pennsylvania did not formally define “abuse” or provide a remedy for its commission until 1990.  Before that date, the only mechanism available to address it was in the criminal system, typically as an assault.  The statute has been amended several times and, at this writing, there are bills circulating in Harrisburg to expand the remedies even further.

It is a popular form of action.  In 2016, there were just over 39,000 requests for relief requested.  That is 100-150 per day depending on whether weekend days are counted.  Contrast this with 33,000 divorces in the same time period and 73,000 marriages.

Persons who seek protection under this statute need to allege facts that indicate they are in immediate danger of some physical form of harm from a household member, intimate partner or co-parent.  The Courts are charged with reviewing the allegations without a hearing and deciding whether immediate relief is to be granted before a hearing.  Because judges prefer to be safe rather than sorry eighty-eight percent (88%) of the actions filed resulted in a temporary order before a hearing took place.  These orders range from a prohibition against further abusive behavior to exclusive possession of a common residence.

The AOPC also looked at the ultimate disposition of these cases after a hearing was held.  These statistics are also somewhat harrowing.  Over a five year period twenty-nine percent (29%) of petitioners did not bother to show up for their hearings.  Another twenty percent (20%) withdrew their petition when the hearing was called into court.  There is the rub.  39,000 filings and yet only about half ever proceed.  Of those that do proceed 40% result in an agreement.  These agreements can also range from total exclusion from a common household to less restrictive stay away or minimal contact orders.  Thirty-two percent (32%) of the cases which actually are called for hearing result in the grant of an abuse order.  Eight percent (8%) proceed to trial and the court finds that relief is not merited and the case is dismissed.  The AOPC stats report that in nine percent (9%) of cases the temporary order granted before the hearing is dismissed.  This seems somewhat vague in that those cases either merited entry of a protection order or did not.  If dismissal of the temporary order equates with dismissal of the case, it means that for those cases that actually proceed to trial the odds are slightly better than fifty percent (50%) that a finding of abuse will be made and a remedy enforced.  http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/news?Article=950

The good news, if there can be any on this subject, is that the number of requests for relief has declined by seven percent (7%) over five years. This would tend to indicate that we have become less violent or that judges have started to ferret out spurious filings and the word has gotten out.  The bad news, more than 650 times each week Pennsylvanians are appearing at Courthouse doors with allegations that judges deem worthy of temporary emergent protection orders.

This is actually about executive compensation.  Not just any executive but senior, senior executives. If you have not noticed, we live in a brave new world where many public companies are seeing large blocks of their stock being acquired by private equity companies like Blackstone, Carlyle Group, KKR or Bain Capital.  To discourage these often hostile takeovers, many businesses have developed plans to make the takeover financially unattractive.

The one we have observed in recent years that should be evaluated in a divorce setting is an employment agreement that contains special “change in control provisions.”  Many large companies have various forms of equity and pseudo equity arrangements like stock options, restricted stock, performance stock and phantom stock awards.  The goal of these plans is to retain senior managers and incent them to drive profits and stock price higher in the hope that if they remain with the employer they will share in advances in stock price.  Most of these plans have graduated vesting of the incentive equity over three years. To ward off hostile investors bent on takeover, the employer writes into the agreement that, should there be a change in control of the company, all unvested grants vest automatically and must be paid out to the employee.  Thus, if a takeover target is “acquired”  the acquiring company has to cash out not only what is vested in employee equity but the unvested piece as well.  That can crimp the cash position of any business but in recent years private equity investors have not been much deterred by these disincentives.

So, many of us review employment agreements and often they contain obtuse references to things like “change in control.”  Don’t skip over those clauses too quickly, because you could find, as I have in two recent cases, that a buyout of the employer vests all options or other contingent arrangements and makes the employee eligible for an immediate payout of what was a form of deferred compensation.  Note as well, that some emoluments like pensions, non-qualified retirement plans and other forms of benefits may be “supersized” by the acquisition experience.  The pension that was $3,000 a month, might magically become $6,000 without the employee spouse doing more than being on payroll when the magical event occurs.  Even if these blessed events occur after separation, they commonly arise under the terms of agreements or awards made before separation.  They are enhancements coming about not because of post separation labor or contributions but simply, “because” the employer was targeted for a buyout.

So back to Roy Rogers and his famous steed.  A single “Trigger” acceleration occurs when one event triggers the acceleration of vesting, allowing an equity owner to receive the full or partial value of his or her stock.  Typically, they are related to the sale, merger or restructuring of a company.

These arrangements have evolved over time. In olden days, no business wanted to be “acquired.”  But over time some companies have not been so opposed to corporate courtship.  They realize that many employees would take the enhancements and walk out the door for other pastures and that this was a pronounced “negative” to potential corporate suitors.  So they developed the “double trigger” enhancement.  Double trigger requires two events before enhancements and automatic investing occur.  The first is the acquisition, just as before.  The second is the termination of the employee without “cause.”

Single trigger acceleration is unpopular with investors who generally want to position the company for acquisition.  One of the first things that acquirers review as part of their due diligence is vesting acceleration rights.  This is because they largely want to ensure continuity of the talent and operations that made the company prosperous in the first place.  If a key employee has a vesting acceleration right upon the company’s sale, then the buyer is at risk of losing the talent that built a successful organization.

For this reason, single trigger acceleration of vesting that’s conditioned on an ownership change is unpopular.  It means that if the new owners want to retain these employees, they’ll need to sweeten the pot to incentivize the original employees to continue with the new organization, driving up the cost of the transaction.  On the other hand, vesting acceleration clauses can lead to a lower acquisition price to offset buyout costs.  The result is diluted stock value for shareholders and investors.

A double acceleration clause requires two events to trigger vesting acceleration.  One event is the sale or merger of the company, and the other is usually termination of the employee without cause.  These are more attractive to potential buyers since they tend to promote mutual benefits to both the key employee with the acceleration rights, as well as the acquiring entity.  Rather than triggering automatic acceleration upon the event of a company’s acquisition, another event is required in order to trigger vesting acceleration; the employee’s termination. Many acquiring companies want to keep the acquired management and or sales force in place.  Those are the geese that laid the eggs the acquiring company wants to keep producing.  So the employment agreements for these individuals don’t make the special vesting occur until the employee is terminated.  The acquiring business would rather keep its powder dry to pay retention bonuses or provide other incentives as part of the acquisition.  These, alas, are probably post separation enhancements. But if the employee is released without cause within a defined period (typically 24 months) after closing on the merger or acquisition, that severed head is going to vest in many different forms of deferred compensation based on the original employment agreement.

Every case with an important executive merits a request for all agreements between employer and employee-spouse. Those agreements merit attention for the reasons we have specified above. Because many employees may someday be invited to waddle over to the Fixins bar for a heapin’ helpin’ of vested options and benefits.   A non-employee spouse or former spouse may be entitled to a share of the fixins.

The holidays are not upon us but they are not far away either.  If you are separated and your holiday plans for sharing custody are not, “set” it is well-nigh time to begin the discussion because November is not a good time to start Thanksgiving discussions and December is going to follow immediately.

If this has been your “separation” year for good or for bad, you need to understand that when it comes to old holiday traditions, all bets may be off.  Yes, your family has always spent Christmas Eve preparing the seven fishes at grandma’s house.  But this year, one of the fish is not being invited and that fish may put up a stink about it. Typically,  Courts divide holidays and alternate major ones so that both parents have a crack at Christmas morning or the first Seder.  One parent will get the odd years and another the even ones.

But, this short essay has another consideration too, and it is one courts do not customarily address.  If you separated this year, it is not unlikely that the separation brought a new person into the family picture.  Perhaps you were the one who fell in love with someone at the gym or on Facebook.  Perhaps, your spouse returned from his or her high school reunion with an old romance rekindled.  As most of us recall, new romance offers a special thrill.  For most, it is exhilarating. If you have ever been the person who was “dumped,” the feeling is not quite the same.

Typically, exhilaration prompts a desire for celebration.  Get a promotion at work and you want the whole family to celebrate, just as you would when a child completes an achievement, whether finishing kindergarten or graduating school.  But, romance is a lot trickier when family is “involved.”

Rarely do two spouses fall into new relationships at the same time.  So usually, when a separation occurs, one-person steps into a new relationship while another is left without any.  Imagine being a child, of any age, and encountering your first holiday with one parent ecstatic about his or her new love and another mourning the failure of a marriage.  One parent is telling you where they went and what they did with their new love interest, while the other is visibly in pain from the same separation.

If you are the parent in the “new” relationship, for the sake of your kids “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”  They are in an incredibly awkward position.  They will be celebrating the holidays with two parents, one wanting to fete a new relationship to a degree that becomes nauseating, the other mourning the loss of one.  For children of all ages, whether their parents had a good marriage or a bad one, it is the only marriage they knew growing up.  Separation signals the death of their parents’ relationship and that is a death that they are trying to cope with.  They may actually like your new best friend or perceive merit in your marital decision.  Even when parents separate based on common understandings, if one parent has a date on New Years’ Eve and the other does not, the one “without” will feel inferior and “judged”.

Oh, and lest the point be missed, do not assume that your children will share the same attraction to your new friend that you do.  They will often judge that person harshly as the catalyst of their family’s break up whether the fact is true or not.  They certainly will be curious to meet the new Mr. or Ms. Right, but they will also be suspicious.  Since the Middle Ages, we have lived in a world where marriage has been viewed as a “forever event”.  A lot has changed in the past century but even the most cynical of us view marriage as more important than who provides your cable contract or cleans your furnace. If you are happily separated, enjoy your joy quietly, and, don’t delude yourself into thinking that your joy is shared by your kids, no matter what their age.

The September 7 issue of TIME Magazine features our obsession with childhood sports.  The statistics tell the story.  In 2005, school age children played sports at a combined cost of about $8 billion per annum.  Today that number is about $15 billion, almost double. And, during this same period there was no increase in the population of American children.  About 73 million, then and now.  So, how about household income over the same period?  Nominally, it went from an average of $45,000 to $50,000, but if you adjust for inflation, it actually declined a little bit.

This writer’s conclusion?  Americans are spending money they don’t have on something they want and enjoy but do not need.  The cost of team sports for children is itself frightening.  Time reports these as average costs including enrollment, uniforms and lots of travel:

Lacrosse                $8,000

Ice Hockey            $7,000

Baseball/Softball  $4,000

Football                 $2,700

Soccer                    $1,500

Basketball              $1,150

This is not a sport economics blog but we see this every day in our divorce practices.  Parents fight over the logistics of these sport activities. They fight over who will pay.  They fight over whether the child belongs in the sport and, as we recently noted, whether the risk of injury exceeds the benefit.

As the cost of college rises, we also see many parents eyeing their children’s athletic skills as something they can capitalize upon in the form of athletic scholarships.  Putting money in a 529 plan is a tedious way to prepare for college.  But travel with the child’s team to Baltimore or Richmond to watch 72 hours of continuous soccer is now viewed as an “investment.”  Curiously, as time has passed, emphasis is now focusing on athletic performance at younger ages.  Time reports of colleges following “star” athletes at ages as young as 10.  Middle school is now where the talent is first evaluated.  This means, the sport and the child must be nurtured for seven years before the scholarship is awarded.  And, children are seeing repetitive motion injuries crop up more frequently because many of these sports are now scheduled “year round.”  A gifted basketball player cannot afford to risk his future by playing another sport where he could be injured, or worse-yet, his shooting and passing skills are allowed to wither.

In May, I testified before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives about some possible changes in support guidelines.  The witness before me was a Father who, together with his wife, invested heavily in a child’s future as a competitive snowboarder.  Much of this investment was borrowed using husband’s credit cards.  Shortly after it became clear that son’s snowboarding career did not have much promise, wife departed leaving husband with massive credit obligations.  Then she had the temerity to sue him for support.  He wanted relief from the support guidelines because a lot of his income was paying credit card debt associated with promoting their child’s sport.

I must confess, I did not have much sympathy for either parent.  But, as the Time article observes, modern day parents have difficulty saying “no” to their need driven kids.  What child would not want to go to Baltimore, stay in a hotel and hang with his friends while assembled to play back to back softball games on gorgeous college campuses?  Unfortunately, the psychological community is warning that in addition to premature serious sports injuries, many children and their families are starting to experience competitive sports burnout. Especially where scholarships are involved, many competitions and tournaments are mandatory because that’s where the college coaches and scouts are going to be found.  I spoke recently with a fellow lawyer whose child is still reeling from seeing that her son finished both college and his baseball driven career with nowhere to go.  His persona and all of his goals were erected around his athletic talent and now that talent no longer had value.

This is a bad cycle and one that often robs the children of their physical and emotional well-being while robbing their parents’ purse with little chance of return.  Each year about 400-500,000 high school kids play baseball, soccer and basketball.  Another 1.1 million play football.  The likelihood they will take this skill to the professional world is frighteningly small.  Baseball: 1 in 760; Football: 1 in 600; Soccer: 1 in 800; and, basketball: 1 in 1,860.  Sports have much merit. But all good things must come in moderation.