House Judiciary Committee may seek to overturn NFL’s antitrust exemption

[rbaloha1]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/House-Judiciary-Committee-may-seek-to-overturn-N?urn=nfl-wp199

Stupid Owners. It was better to keep the previous CBA.

[MJZiggy]

That was a very bad move on the owners' part for several reasons. Anyone not see this one coming?

[rbaloha1]

That was a very bad move on the owners' part for several reasons. Anyone not see this one coming?

Exactly. Its their arrogance. Anyone wonder players are upset?

[gbgary]

Loud mouth jerry jones is at the bottom of all this. Over time he's talked every one into this billion dollar grab and now it's going to backfire on him.

[RashanGary]

Now the owners look like the real idiots. They pulled this punch to try to get 18 games and wanted to do it at the expense of the players with no additional pay. Then they wouldn't even open their books to show the players they were in fact sinking a little. They did all of that with this looming over their head if the players didn't just say, "aw shucks guys, we don't need money."

Dumb gamble.

ARROGANT!

They will get what they deserve.

[rbaloha1]

Loud mouth jerry jones is at the bottom of all this. Over time he's talked every one into this billion dollar grab and now it's going to backfire on him.

Wasn't he the one with the lockout signal to the players? Modern slave owner.

[RashanGary]

I think they should have went for the 18 games but paid the players to play them. 18 games is definitely in the best interest of the NFL whether we realize it or not. We WILL watch and they WILL make money. FACT. And the short preseason will be SWEET!!!!!!

Instead, this is happening. Just stupid.

[rbaloha1]

I think they should have went for the 18 games but paid the players to play them. 18 games is definitely in the best interest of the NFL whether we realize it or not. We WILL watch and they WILL make money. FACT.

Players never wanted the 18 game season period. Liar Puppet Goddell said public demanded 18 games. Liar -- public does not want to be charged regular season prices for pre season games. The owners position sure is unraveling quicker than one can say. "show me the money!"

[Lurker64]

Considering that the people suggesting this are (D-MI) and (D-WV) means that there will almost certainly be a new CBA before Boehner actually deigns to consider this. Remember that the folks who actually control the house are almost certainly on the side of the owners.

Considering that the government is currently being funded by *TWO WEEK* continuing resolutions, means that nobody in congress actually has time for this.

[rbaloha1]

Considering that the people suggesting this are (D-MI) and (D-WV) means that there will almost certainly be a new CBA before Boehner actually deigns to consider this. Remember that the folks who actually control the house are almost certainly on the side of the owners.

Considering that the government is currently being funded by *TWO WEEK* continuing resolutions, means that nobody in congress actually has time for this.

You wish. What about the merits of the case?

[Lurker64]

You wish. What about the merits of the case?

The merits are irrelevant, this is politics. This is just a politician playing politics with an issue that affects a lot more people than actually follow politics. It's no different from Orrin Hatch trying to do away with the BCS. It would be virtually impossible to pass either bill in a normal session, which we certainly do not have.

Remember that the house judiciary committee is not a courtroom. It's just 23 Republican and 16 Democrats. Just because the minority leader of the committee wants to do anything doesn't mean it makes it out of committee, and just because it makes it out of committee doesn't mean it stands a chance on the floor of the house, let alone the senate.

[rbaloha1]

The merits are irrelevant, this is politics. This is just a politician playing politics with an issue that affects a lot more people than actually follow politics. It's no different from Orrin Hatch trying to do away with the BCS. It would be virtually impossible to pass either bill in a normal session, which we certainly do not have.

Okay based on the anti trust as spelled out in the article are the Owners in violation. I say, "Yes." You say ...

[Lurker64]

Okay based on the anti trust as spelled out in the article are the Owners in violation. I say, "Yes." You say ...

This is politics, it's not a courtroom. Facts are irrelevant in congress.

[rbaloha1]

Okay before a court trial? Trivalize the hearings all you want but no NFL owner wants to appear before Congress.

[Lurker64]

Okay before a court trial? Trivalize the hearings all you want but no NFL owner wants to appear before Congress.

Unless the NFLPA* is willing to return to the bargaining table, they don't exactly have much else to do between now and the start of April.

Keep in mind that the NLRB is still investigating whether the decertification if the union is a sham, and the NFLPA* is only actually litigating in order to gain leverage towards an eventual CBA. Once we get back to the negotiating table and after we get a new CBA, this will all go away.

[MJZiggy]

The merits are irrelevant, this is politics. This is just a politician playing politics with an issue that affects a lot more people than actually follow politics. It's no different from Orrin Hatch trying to do away with the BCS. It would be virtually impossible to pass either bill in a normal session, which we certainly do not have.

Remember that the house judiciary committee is not a courtroom. It's just 23 Republican and 16 Democrats. Just because the minority leader of the committee wants to do anything doesn't mean it makes it out of committee, and just because it makes it out of committee doesn't mean it stands a chance on the floor of the house, let alone the senate.

There is still public opinion to consider here along with the politics. The key point, I think, is the projection that this will cost local economies billions of dollars. If committee members side with the owners, they'll have to explain to their constituents why they're letting the billionaires cost them that kind of money. I don't think they want to have to do that.

[rbaloha1]

Unless the NFLPA* is willing to return to the bargaining table, they don't exactly have much else to do between now and the start of April.

Keep in mind that the NLRB is still investigating whether the decertification if the union is a sham, and the NFLPA* is only actually litigating in order to gain leverage towards an eventual CBA. Once we get back to the negotiating table and after we get a new CBA, this will all go away.

Nothing magically disappears. You still fail to answer (off the record) if the owners are violating anti-trust rules? All this other stuff YOU mention HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POTENTIAL ANTI TRUST. TYPICAL MUMBO JUMBO.

INTELLECTUALLY ARE THE OWNERS VIOLATING ANTI TRUST LAWS?

[Lurker64]

There is still public opinion to consider here along with the politics. The key point, I think, is the projection that this will cost local economies billions of dollars. If committee members side with the owners, they'll have to explain to their constituents why they're letting the billionaires cost them that kind of money. I don't think they want to have to do that.

But at the point where the two sides get back to the bargaining table (likely after Judge Nelson rules on the motion for Preliminary Injunction, hearing start April 6) this is going to go away. Since when there is a CBA, and when there is going to be a full slate of games scheduled for 2010... there's no harm involved, and so no reason to consider this. While there's hope of that happening, since the two sides are negotiating, congress won't want to get involved.

[rbaloha1]

But at the point where the two sides get back to the bargaining table (likely after Judge Nelson rules on the motion for Preliminary Injunction, hearing start April 6) this is going to go away. Since when there is a CBA, and when there is going to be a full slate of games scheduled for 2010... there's no harm involved, and so no reason to consider this. While there's hope of that happening, since the two sides are negotiating, congress won't want to get involved.

There is harm to the consumer which is why anti trust is being raised.

[Lurker64]

Nothing magically disappears. You still fail to answer (off the record) if the owners are violating anti-trust rules? All this other stuff YOU mention HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH POTENTIAL ANTI TRUST. TYPICAL MUMBO JUMBO.

INTELLECTUALLY ARE THE OWNERS VIOLATING ANTI TRUST LAWS?

If the decertification is a sham, and the union still exists the owners are not violating anti-trust laws. If decertification is not a sham, and the union no longer exists then the owners likely are. But "x is violating antitrust laws" is something that can only be established in a courtroom. Remember, federal labor laws in general exempt the NFL from anti-trust considerations under a CBA.

[Lurker64]

There is harm to the consumer which is why anti trust is being raised.

No, it's being raised to threaten owners into capitulating. It's the same reason why Major League Baseball was threatened with an end to their anti-trust exemption in 2001. They held hearings, and nothing happened. Same thing will happen here.

[rbaloha1]

If the decertification is a sham, and the union still exists the owners are not violating anti-trust laws. If decertification is not a sham, and the union no longer exists then the owners likely are. But "x is violating antitrust laws" is something that can only be established in a courtroom. Remember, federal labor laws in general exempt the NFL from anti-trust considerations under a CBA.

Well said. Thank you. Unsure whether the decertification factors-in. I say no or else the union would not have decertified which is stupid. In fact you are wrong since the Brady case charges the owners with among other things anti-trust.

[rbaloha1]

No, it's being raised to threaten owners into capitulating. It's the same reason why Major League Baseball was threatened with an end to their anti-trust exemption in 2001. They held hearings, and nothing happened. Same thing will happen here.

You wish.

[Bossman641]

Wasn't he the one with the lockout signal to the players? Modern slave owner.

Again with this nonsense?

Please humor me. What about the current NFL setup makes the players slave-like in any way? The fact that they are highly compensated? The fact they can choose to quit at any time?

[rbaloha1]

Again with this nonsense?

Please humor me. What about the current NFL setup makes the players slave-like in any way? The fact that they are highly compensated? The fact they can choose to quit at any time?

See my hired public relations packer rat.

[Lurker64]

Well said. Thank you. Unsure whether the decertification factors-in. I say no or else the union would not have decertified which is stupid. In fact you are wrong since the Brady case charges the owners with among other things anti-trust.

Just because something is insinuated to happen in a lawsuit, does not mean that it actually happened. If a series of judges, on the recommendation of the NLRB rules that the NFLPA's negotiation is a sham and that they negotiated in bad faith, then Brady et. al. vs. NFL will be thrown out as White vs. NFL established that NFL players can have the protections of labor law or of antitrust law, but may not have both. Insofar that the NFLPA is still a union, they may not sue under antitrust law.

The important thing to keep in mind about litigation is that it is uncertain, which is why I was surprised that the CBA negotiations came to this. Either side could end up with a significantly worst deal than they could have gotten through negotiations as a result of this. There's no way to tell in advance who wins or who is right. All the fans can hope for is that once some leverage is established in the initial round of rulings, there will be a return to the negotiating table. Though, if we take Mark Murphy and Roger Gooddell at their word, the league would like to resume negotiations now.

[rbaloha1]

Anti trust has absolutely nothing to with union, non-union or CBA (see Microsoft). Bottom-line: Is John Q. Citizen harmed? In regards to the NFL I say, "Yes." What think? Please disregard the previous mumbo jumbo. Thank you.

[mraynrand]

Anti trust has absolutely nothing to with union, non-union or CBA (see Microsoft). Bottom-line: Is John Q. Citizen harmed? In regards to the NFL I say, "Yes." What think? Please disregard the previous mumbo jumbo. Thank you.

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right about anti-trust. How exactly is the public harmed?

[MJZiggy]

But at the point where the two sides get back to the bargaining table (likely after Judge Nelson rules on the motion for Preliminary Injunction, hearing start April 6) this is going to go away. Since when there is a CBA, and when there is going to be a full slate of games scheduled for 2010... there's no harm involved, and so no reason to consider this. While there's hope of that happening, since the two sides are negotiating, congress won't want to get involved.

It depends. Are fans pissed off and not buying jerseys? Will they hesitate to buy the jersey of their favorite draftee because they know he won't be working out or signed? If it lasts til training camp, will they consider the restaurants and people who might normally "rent" their driveways and lawns for parking (in the Packers' case, even for practices)? What about the ones who give Lambeau Field Tours? Run Curly's? If they lock the stadium, Curly's is out of business until it reopens. Will interest wane at Canton this summer because people have given up and decided to immerse themselves in baseball for the summer? That means less food sold in that neighborhood, less HOF ticket sales, parking and all that there too. It may not be great yet, but there's still an economic impact. And let's not think for a second that the (IIRC) 5.1 billion stat for local economic impacts won't be tossed around by the players, the affected businesses, and the democrats in an election year. They have to pay actual attention to the issues in this case and have a good reason for choosing the billionaires over the concessionaires or it will be thrown back in their faces.

[Lurker64]

Okay, let's make this simple.

The NFL is exempted from anti-trust considerations in dealing with the players union under a collective bargaining agreement due to the result of White vs. NFL. This means that the NFL can have a draft, can have restricted free agency, franchise tags etc. insofar as they are collectively bargained, as they are things that would otherwise be anti-trust violations. The parties hurt by these prospective anti-trust violations are the players.

The NFL is exempted from anti-trust considerations when negotiating broadcast contracts because congress specifically granted them this exemption in 1961. Due to this exemption, the NFL can negotiate a contract for broadcast rights for the whole league. The alternative would be that each team would be responsible for negotiating its own broadcast contracts. So, for example, the Packer games could be on CBS while the Giants games might be on ABC and the Titans games might be on TNT. The parties hurt by these prospective anti-trust violations are the broadcast networks, not the players or the fans.

The second anti-trust consideration is what is being considered by the House Judiciary Committee. The first anti-trust consideration is the issue at hand in Brady vs. NFL.

[Bossman641]

See my hired public relations packer rat.

I'd prefer to hear it straight from the horses mouth

[rbaloha1]

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right about anti-trust. How exactly is the public harmed?

High priced tickets and merchandise. The public financed stadiums also factor-in.

[rbaloha1]

I'd prefer to hear it straight from the horses mouth

I pay my pr man too much.

[mraynrand]

High priced tickets and merchandise. The public financed stadiums also factor-in.


IS someone harmed by agreeing to pay lots of money for a non-essential item they want? Should art dealers be penalized for selling crappy artwork for thousands at an auction?

As for the public financed stadiums - if the owners pick up the rest of the tab, will the surrounding businesses that 'profit' from the team give up a fraction of their income to the owners? Couldn't the owners - especially those who own their stadiums - sue for harm because they don't get more income from the dependent leeches surrounding their stadium and team?

[rbaloha1]

IS someone harmed by agreeing to pay lots of money for a non-essential item they want? Should art dealers be penalized for selling crappy artwork for thousands at an auction?

As for the public financed stadiums - if the owners pick up the rest of the tab, will the surrounding businesses that 'profit' from the team give up a fraction of their income to the owners? Couldn't the owners - especially those who own their stadiums - sue for harm because they don't get more income from the dependent leeches surrounding their stadium and team?

Just wait for the ruling. The owners are going to get reamed.

[mraynrand]

Just wait for the ruling. The owners are going to get reamed.

That me be so, but it doesn't address my questions, and doesn't support your claim about harm. Try again. Maybe you should throw something in about slavery to support your POV.

[rbaloha1]

That me be so, but it doesn't address my questions, and doesn't support your claim about harm. Try again. Maybe you should throw something in about slavery to support your POV.

Okay the slaves are being harmed.

[Lurker64]

Florio makes several salient points: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/16/nflpa-should-drop-any-efforts-to-attack-nfls-antitrust-exemption-for-broadcasting/

[rbaloha1]

Florio makes several salient points: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/16/nflpa-should-drop-any-efforts-to-attack-nfls-antitrust-exemption-for-broadcasting/

Owner apologist that shall be hurt if the lawbreakers lose.

[Lurker64]

Owner apologist that shall be hurt if the lawbreakers lose.

Now you're just grasping for straws. Absolutely everybody who disagrees with you is simply ignorant or malicious, correct?

Plus, did you actually read the article? It lays out how ending the league's broadcast anti-trust exemption would actually be bad for the players, as it would result in much less money going their way. Were the NFL's broadcast anti-trust exemption ended, it would result in significantly much less money for the owners and the players. Nobody wants this.

Oh, and in case you missed it, the Lamar Smith (R, Texas) who was quoted saying “The owners and players are both literally and figuratively big boys and do not need Congress to referee every dispute for them,” in that article? He's the Judiciary Committee chair. The issue cannot be taken up by the committee without the approval of the chair, and he doesn't sound like he's going to give his approval, does he?

[rbaloha1]

Now you're just grasping for straws. Absolutely everybody who disagrees with you is simply ignorant or malicious, correct?

Plus, did you actually read the article? It lays out how ending the league's broadcast anti-trust exemption would actually be bad for the players, as it would result in much less money going their way. Were the NFL's broadcast anti-trust exemption ended, it would result in significantly much less money for the owners and the players. Nobody wants this.

Oh, and in case you missed it, the Lamar Smith (R, Texas) who was quoted saying “The owners and players are both literally and figuratively big boys and do not need Congress to referee every dispute for them,” in that article? He's the Judiciary Committee chair. The issue cannot be taken up by the committee without the approval of the chair, and he doesn't sound like he's going to give his approval, does he?

What are the salient points? BTW other articles says the hearing occurs. For your sake lets hope the hearing do not happen. Florio does well from the previous agreement. I would do the same as Florio -- fluff pieces scaring the public.

[Lurker64]

What are the salient points? BTW other articles says the hearing occurs. For your sake lets hope the hearing do not happen. Florio does well from the previous agreement. I would do the same as Florio -- fluff pieces scaring the public.

Salient points:
1) Revoking anti-trust exemption hurts both players and owners.
2) Revoking the anti-trust exemption will not be heard by the committee without approval of the committee chair.
3) The committee chair will not give his approval to address this issue.
also.
4) DeMaurice Smith raised this as a potential leverage point a year ago, so this is entirely expected.

[Guiness]

If the decertification is a sham, and the union still exists the owners are not violating anti-trust laws. If decertification is not a sham, and the union no longer exists then the owners likely are. But "x is violating antitrust laws" is something that can only be established in a courtroom. Remember, federal labor laws in general exempt the NFL from anti-trust considerations under a CBA.

In one of the other threads, it was said that the NFL doesn't have anti-trust exemption???

[Lurker64]

In one of the other threads, it was said that the NFL doesn't have anti-trust exemption???

There are different levels of antitrust-exemption.

Every collectively bargained agreement provides a level of protection for business owners. If labor and management both agree to it, it's not subject to antitrust law, assuming the rule in question only affects ownership and labor. This is why, for example, drafts are legal in the various professional sports.

Each of the four major professional sports leagues (baseball, basketball, football, and hockey) have a broadcast antitrust exemption, wherein they can sell their games to broadcasters in bundles.

Baseball, unlike all other sports, has a specific "license to be a monopoly" antitrust exemption. If a nascent league started up in a given sport, the NBA, NHL, or NFL could not interfere in the nascent league's ability to sign players (e.g. "if you sign that contract with that league, you will never play in our league") but Major League Baseball is allowed to do so. Insofar as the NFL wants to do away with things like the UFL, USFL, and XFL they can simply offer better deals to enough players from those leagues to kill them. If MLB wanted to kill a prospective alternative baseball league, they could just threaten to blackball anybody who signs with that other league and they would have a legal right to do so.

[Guiness]

There are different levels of antitrust-exemption.


I should have RTFA. I understand now how the broadcast thing works.

I wonder how the NHL handles it now? At one time, the Rangers (part of Madison Square Gardens) had their own local cable contract, and pulled in a lot of money that way. I think teams can still broker their own local deals, but negotiate as a group for national contracts.

[sharpe1027]

IS someone harmed by agreeing to pay lots of money for a non-essential item they want? Should art dealers be penalized for selling crappy artwork for thousands at an auction?

As for the public financed stadiums - if the owners pick up the rest of the tab, will the surrounding businesses that 'profit' from the team give up a fraction of their income to the owners? Couldn't the owners - especially those who own their stadiums - sue for harm because they don't get more income from the dependent leeches surrounding their stadium and team?

Their complaint says that they are bringing the suit on behalf of players not the fans, so they are saying that they are the ones harmed by things like the lockout. They are also alleging per se violations. From their complaint: "The group boycotts, concerted refusals to deal and price fixing which Defendants are carrying out are per se illegal acts"

[Patler]

Probably, but not conclusively, this is just a bunch of political blather that will have no real lasting impact. Every time a major sport has a CBA stalemate, some members of Congress make threats about "opening the sport up", "repealing exemptions", "making it equal in the marketplace to other businesses". Hearings might be held. So what? In the end, it is not likely to change significantly.

If hearings are held, owners may have to endure some uncomfortable moments as politicians use the scene to promote themselves, but in the end there will be no great makeover of the league, even if a few details change.

[Tarlam!]

I think they should have went for the 18 games but paid the players to play them. 18 games is definitely in the best interest of the NFL whether we realize it or not. We WILL watch and they WILL make money. FACT. And the short preseason will be SWEET!!!!!!

Instead, this is happening. Just stupid.

I'd be all for 18 games if there were two bye weeks. When we first discussed this I went to the trouble of working out a schedule, though it's buried somewhere. The jist was the two bye weeks were fixed for 16 teams (2 divisions from both conferences) on 4 game days. week 6 & 7 and week 12 & 13

But the roster size needs to increase significantly and obviously, the players should be compensated accordingly.

[RashanGary]

Players never wanted the 18 game season period. Liar Puppet Goddell said public demanded 18 games. Liar -- public does not want to be charged regular season prices for pre season games. The owners position sure is unraveling quicker than one can say. "show me the money!"

My understanding is that the owners went to the players with this: "Our profits are starting to dwindle, but there is a market for more football. Rather than decreasing your pay, lets add two regular season games so your pay can stay the same and we can continue to be a profitable league." The players said, "show us how you reached your profit numbers so we can negotiate." The owners counted with, "here are some numbers that show what we want to show but have no way of being proven and we've already lied in the past with numbers like these in negotiations." The players said, "18 games is off the table because we're not playing games we don't get paid for." The owners said, "fine, here's the paycut we demand." The players said, "not until we see why you're demanding it." "The owners said, "no" The players decertified.

Ultimately, I think the owners really wanted 18 games and thought they could pull the wool over the players eyes. The players knew they really wanted the 18 and that's why they absolutely denied it because they weren't getting paid. If the owners want to get more football and get more money, just pay the players for playing the extra games and everything is over. Those two games could have paid for retirement benefits. Instead, the owners just wanted a billioin or two extra dollars in their already huge bank accounts.

[Tarlam!]

Instead, the owners just wanted a billioin or two extra dollars in their already huge bank accounts.

See, this is where I say "so what?". As I've pointed out to you before, greedy owners is what got us professional football in the first place. You will point to the Packers as proof that teams don't need owners and I'm on record as saying the Pack is special and not as easy to replicate as you might think. And, let's face it, 1265 isn't operated as a charity. I just paid $100 for a replica helmet for my sons birthday, plus shipping and customs, I'm out 200....

[sharpe1027]

How many business are able to work with all of their competitors to control how much they pay their employees? Business are usually are forced to pay the value for their workers as determined by demand, not some prearranged limit that is set according to their profits. If the owners can't make a living after being given way more advantages than most businesses, maybe they should try another line of work.

[SkinBasket]

I strongly regret opening this big ol' can of stupidity and ignorance. It's like 2nd grade social studies up in here.

But I guess the same people getting real excited about this are the reason politicians pander like this. Because there's always a boatload of fools starving for bait.

[Scott Campbell]

Owner apologist that shall be hurt if the lawbreakers lose.


I think you're having another of your "McCarthy will never win the big one" moments.

[rbaloha1]

I think you're having another of your "McCarthy will never win the big one" moments.

Maybe so.

[MadScientist]

Good article Lurker, that scenario was what crossed my mind when I heard about ending the anti-trust exemption for broadcasting. I don't want football going the way of baseball as far as finances go. While Smith is right that Congress isn't needed to referee every dispute between them, the billions in economic impact of a lingering work stoppage means that congress does have a vested interest in them getting an agreement done.

[mraynrand]

the billions in economic impact of a lingering work stoppage means that congress does have a vested interest in them getting an agreement done.

I think you may be overestimating the economic impact. The dispute will get resolved without congress, and I suspect there will be nary a blip of impact. Congress has much more important work to screw up.

[SkinBasket]

the billions in economic impact of a lingering work stoppage means that congress does have a vested interest in them getting an agreement done.

It's that kind of moronic thinking that's gotten us where we are today - on the verge of a economically bankrupt federal dictatorship.

Unless you can show me where the founding fathers provided for the legislature to inject itself into labor disputes. Because if you want to argue that it's because of the large amount of money involved, you'll have to provide some reasoning as to how much is enough or too little for the forced involvement of our federal government, otherwise there are no limitations to the power you want to grant Congress.

[Lurker64]

While Smith is right that Congress isn't needed to referee every dispute between them, the billions in economic impact of a lingering work stoppage means that congress does have a vested interest in them getting an agreement done.

Though, Congress should, as a rule, avoid involving itself in labor fights regardless of their impact by picking a side. If anybody in a position of government actually wanted to force that a deal get done, forcing binding arbitration would be significantly more efficacious than "threatening one side until they capitulate."

Though to be honest, DeMaurice Smith did win election to the NFLPA head by touting his connections to Washington and his ability to convince politicians to step in on behalf of the union. Unfortunately for him, they were all Democrats and there was an election in 2010.

[mraynrand]

It's that kind of moronic thinking that's gotten us where we are today - on the verge of a economically bankrupt federal dictatorship.

Unless you can show me where the founding fathers provided for the legislature to inject itself into labor disputes. Because if you want to argue that it's because of the large amount of money involved, you'll have to provide some reasoning as to how much is enough or too little for the forced involvement of our federal government, otherwise there are no limitations to the power you want to grant Congress.


Take it ti FYI, cocksnorkel!

[MadScientist]

It's that kind of moronic thinking that's gotten us where we are today - on the verge of a economically bankrupt federal dictatorship.

Unless you can show me where the founding fathers provided for the legislature to inject itself into labor disputes. Because if you want to argue that it's because of the large amount of money involved, you'll have to provide some reasoning as to how much is enough or too little for the forced involvement of our federal government, otherwise there are no limitations to the power you want to grant Congress.

Keep your right-wing idiocy to the FYI circle jerk where it belongs and where you can have your wet-dream of the morally and economically bankrupt federal dictatorship that republicans are striving for.

As for where it is in the constitution, how about:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce ... among the several States

The authority is there the key is to use such authority wisely.

[MadScientist]

Though, Congress should, as a rule, avoid involving itself in labor fights regardless of their impact by picking a side. If anybody in a position of government actually wanted to force that a deal get done, forcing binding arbitration would be significantly more efficacious than "threatening one side until they capitulate."
Agreed that picking a side is generally not the best way to go for congress. Although as the article points out, eliminating the anti-trust exemption is not really being on the players side, or the owners side. It just messes up football altogether. It's congress' way of saying "settle your dispute, or we'll really screw things up".

[Tarlam!]

Well, I agree with Skin and I want to have his babies in my next life, if that's OK with Nutz.

[rbaloha1]

Though, Congress should, as a rule, avoid involving itself in labor fights regardless of their impact by picking a side. If anybody in a position of government actually wanted to force that a deal get done, forcing binding arbitration would be significantly more efficacious than "threatening one side until they capitulate."

Though to be honest, DeMaurice Smith did win election to the NFLPA head by touting his connections to Washington and his ability to convince politicians to step in on behalf of the union. Unfortunately for him, they were all Democrats and there was an election in 2010.

Well said. Unfortunately the players are forced to use Congress. Its dicey if the anti exemption is changed or removed for both parties.

[SkinBasket]

Keep your right-wing idiocy to the FYI circle jerk where it belongs and where you can have your wet-dream of the morally and economically bankrupt federal dictatorship that republicans are striving for.

As for where it is in the constitution, how about:


The authority is there the key is to use such authority wisely.

What do the enumerated powers of "our" federal government have to do with right wing or left wing anything? Other than your uneducated attempt to avoid providing a base for your moronic position, I mean?

LOL. There's nothing that interstate commerce and "the general welfare" clause can't solve these days for some folks. I suppose if you really believe that Congress forcing its way into a labor dispute in a professional sports league is somehow providing for the common defense and general welfare of the citizens of the United States of America, then you're not going to understand any argument that is any more nuanced than, "you are an idiot."

But I mean that with all due respect someone who believes that our federal government has been granted unlimited authority to do whatever it wants by our Constitution, as long as someone can somehow claim it's in the name of our general welfare and hypothetically has something to do with more than one state.

[SkinBasket]

Well, I agree with Skin and I want to have his babies in my next life, if that's OK with Nutz.

I think we'll have to adopt, since we both plan on being women from what can tell.

[RashanGary]

What do the enumerated powers of "our" federal government have to do with right wing or left wing anything? Other than your uneducated attempt to avoid providing a base for your moronic position, I mean?

LOL. There's nothing that interstate commerce and "the general welfare" clause can't solve these days for some folks. I suppose if you really believe that Congress forcing its way into a labor dispute in a professional sports league is somehow providing for the common defense and general welfare of the citizens of the United States of America, then you're not going to understand any argument that is any more nuanced than, "you are an idiot."

But I mean that with all due respect someone who believes that our federal government has been granted unlimited authority to do whatever it wants by our Constitution, as long as someone can somehow claim it's in the name of our general welfare and hypothetically has something to do with more than one state.

I'd love see us all in a country where all labor laws were gone just for the sake of showing those who insist on their conservative interpretation of the constitution. Sorry bud, the nature of capitalism is the fit survive and those willing to be cut throat would have all of the advantage in a lawless business world. I'll stick with the liberal way we read our good ol' constitution, thank you.

[Tarlam!]

I think we'll have to adopt, since we both plan on being women from what can tell.

No, we'll both go to sperm banks in this life and we can have eachothers babies in our next. If that fails, we'll just have to abuse Nutz.

[Lurker64]

I'd love see us all in a country where all labor laws were gone just for the sake of showing those who insist on their conservative interpretation of the constitution. Sorry bud, the nature of capitalism is the fit survive and those willing to be cut throat would have all of the advantage in a lawless business world. I'll stick with the liberal way we read our good ol' constitution, thank you.

Who said that labor laws should be gone? Skin was just pointing out that allowing "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" to allow the federal government to do anything they want to is directly contrary to the intent of the framer's of the constitution, and additionally a clear path to tyranny. There are some things that the federal government should not get involved in. The current NFL-NFLPA spat is one of them.

[RashanGary]

I'd love it to be straight conservative for 20 years. I think our country would fall apart. Take away minimum wage. Whatever you're worth you'll make. Take away overtime laws, break laws, family medical leave. Take the government straight out of the equation. This big government we all hate so much, I have a feeling we'd get a new appreciation. Over time, as the poor class grew, there would be less and less need for the dwindling middle class. Eventually the haves would be borrowing to the have nots with a snowball effect exactly like the great depression eventually happening again.

[RashanGary]

All countries with a high standard of living are liberal with how they use government. That's because you can't leave it to ruthless cut throats.

[swede]

Like Greece?

[Lurker64]

I'd love it to be straight conservative for 20 years. I think our country would fall apart. Take away minimum wage. Whatever you're worth you'll make. Take away overtime laws, break laws, family medical leave. Take the government straight out of the equation. This big government we all hate so much, I have a feeling we'd get a new appreciation. Over time, as the poor class grew, there would be less and less need for the dwindling middle class. Eventually the haves would be borrowing to the have nots with a snowball effect exactly like the great depression eventually happening again.

This form of trolling is appropriate in FYI but not here. If you want to make an argument as to why the federal government should be involved in the NFL-NFLPA labor spat (beyond the current role of the judiciary) by all means do so. If you want to rail on people who disagree with you politically, please do so elsewhere.

[Tarlam!]

All countries with a high standard of living are liberal with how they use government. That's because you can't leave it to ruthless cut throats.

You've obviously never been o Singapore.

[RashanGary]

He's complaining about the federal goverments involvement in this type of labor dispute. My point is, yeah, they should be able to interject because if there was no check and balance, it would be a horrible place to live.

[RashanGary]

You've obviously never been o Singapore.

I went off the top 10 according to this site

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

[RashanGary]

There maybe be high quality of life found under other economic situations but chances are - location, population and natural resources could play a large role in the outliers.

[swede]

Iceland has a terrible problem with illegal immigration.

People just want what they've got.

[Tony Oday]

Yeah but we are the only ones that have football! :)

I would never vote for a congress person that even talks about football in a professional setting.

This argument is REAL easy. There is no union anymore. Tell your players that there will be a season and all their contracts will be honored and open the doors to the guys to come back. Those who think that they are better off playing in the AFL or CFL or a new league then they can do that or they can play in the NFL.

WHAT I WOULD DO if I had the cash would be to start a football league that has 32 teams and tell the players that if they come to this new league they get 70% of the profits and that they can see the books. I would be a billionaire and the NFL would go bankrupt!

[Tarlam!]

I went off the top 10 according to this site

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

I just object to your sweeping statements, as in "All countries etc". When you make such statements, even outliers become a legitimate part of the discussion. I get your point, BTW, though I disagree with it.

[HowardRoark]

Iceland has a terrible problem with illegal immigration.

People just want what they've got.

Iceland has a terrible problem with going bankrupt too, but the really hot women I think add to the quality of life.


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/459335/icelandic_girls_get_busy_in_reykjavik/

[Lurker64]

He's complaining about the federal goverments involvement in this type of labor dispute. My point is, yeah, they should be able to interject because if there was no check and balance, it would be a horrible place to live.

You're not arguing that "congress should involve itself in this matter" you're arguing "conservatives bad, liberals good".

The means of resolving the dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA is already in place, it's called a federal court and we're going there on April 6. Explain why additional intervention is needed, specifically intervention by congress.

Just basic rhetoric, don't try to make a point that's much bigger than you want to make, even if your intended point is correct if you try for a bigger point and miss then you've discredited yourself. And don't start off by concluding all good ideas have come from people who agree with you and all bad ideas have come from those who disagree, that's a 100% accurate indicator that the speaker is a crackpot.

[swede]

I may be wrong, but the NFL is a distortion on the sensor array of American private enterprise. It may only work within the anti-trust exemption, and it may only work within the delicate balance that has evolved over the years.

The owners are attempting to preserve the status quo. I get the feeling that players are being told that they can force an agreement in accordance with the laws of the land that protect them from the collusion of owners. What the fuck is a salary cap if not an agreed upon collusion?

I have a very bad feeling about this. No football for swede this year.

[Tarlam!]

but the really hot women I think add to the quality of life.

I was only there once in my life, 4 days, 17 years ago. My wife was 3 months pregnant at home. I remained faithful, but it was the toughest test the Lord ever made me sit. Amazingly beautiful intelligent blonde women that dig brown haired non-Icelandic boys.

But I was true to my bride.

[HowardRoark]

I went off the top 10 according to this site

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

I clicked the link and could not find any explanation of what makes the quality of life high in these countries....do you know? The only thing that jumped out at me was that all of the counties are pretty lilly white, so I think this link could be racist.

[Lurker64]

I may be wrong, but the NFL is a distortion on the sensor array of American private enterprise. It may only work within the anti-trust exemption, and it may only work within the delicate balance that has evolved over the years.

The owners are attempting to preserve the status quo. I get the feeling that players are being told that they can force an agreement in accordance with the laws of the land that protect them from the collusion of owners. What the fuck is a salary cap if not an agreed upon collusion?

I have a very bad feeling about this. No football for swede this year.

The NFL, as well as other sports leagues, is a weird entity and if you were to tear it down and recreate it from scratch then it would be a very different entity. Many forms of "collusion" exist in the NFL because we recognize that some franchises are at an inherent advantage over other franchises due to geography, the independent wealth of the ownership, etc. and that the game as a product is best served by "colluding" to negate these advantages. This is why we have things like a draft and a salary cap. Without them, Jerry Jones would just sign Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Von Miller, Julius Jones, A.J. Green, Mark Ingram, etc. ad nauseum out of college. The league without things like a salary cap and a draft would be a very bad product compared to what we have currently.

The text of the American Needle v. NFL decision acknowledges this:


The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions.


Other features of the NFL may also save agreements amongst the teams. We have recognized, for example,’that the interest in maintaining a competitive balance’ among ‘athletic teams is legitimate and important’ . . . . While that same interest applies to the teams in the NFL, it does not justify treating them as a single entity . . . when it comes to the marketing of the teams’ individually owned intellectual property. It is, however, unquestionably an interest that may well justify a variety of collective decisions made by the teams.

Were the NFL organized in 2011, with what we know now, it would literally be a single corporation and "team owners" would just be replaced by sufficiently invested stockholders. In that case, all the stuff they want to do that might be seen as "collusion" in the current system would be blatantly legal.

But the fact that the supreme court issued the above quotes in a decision, means that the NFL may actually have a chance against the NFLPA in an antitrust lawsuit. This is why it's surprising to me that the NFLPA chose litigation over negotiation. Since litigation is inherently uncertain, if the NFL can successfully beat back both an injunction preventing a lockout as well as an antitrust challenge... then the deal the players will have to accept will end up being significantly worse than anything the owners would offer them at the bargaining table.

[Tony Oday]

I clicked the link and could not find any explanation of what makes the quality of life high in these countries....do you know? The only thing that jumped out at me was that all of the counties are pretty lilly white, so I think this link could be racist.

Japan is white?! WTF I must have visited the wrong Tokyo!

[HowardRoark]

Japan is white?! WTF I must have visited the wrong Tokyo!

They no longer have a quality of life.

[Tony Oday]

They no longer have a quality of life.

Touche ;)

[MadScientist]

There's nothing that interstate commerce and "the general welfare" clause can't solve these days for some folks. I suppose if you really believe that Congress forcing its way into a labor dispute in a professional sports league is somehow providing for the common defense and general welfare of the citizens of the United States of America, then you're not going to understand any argument that is any more nuanced than, "you are an idiot."

But I mean that with all due respect someone who believes that our federal government has been granted unlimited authority to do whatever it wants by our Constitution, as long as someone can somehow claim it's in the name of our general welfare and hypothetically has something to do with more than one state.

You are obviously incapable of making an argument more nuanced than, "you are an idiot", so I'll make this simple enough for even you to comprehend:

Congress gave the NFL the anti-trust exemption, so they have the authority to take it away. It is really that simple.

To go on about excessive power and creating dictatorships for considering talking about repealing a law that they passed years ago is beyond stupid.

Now should they be doing this is a different question entirely.

[Tarlam!]

You are obviously incapable of making an argument more nuanced than, "you are an idiot", so I'll make this simple enough for even you to comprehend:

Congress gave the NFL the anti-trust exemption, so they have the authority to take it away. It is really that simple.

To go on about excessive power and creating dictatorships for considering talking about repealing a law that they passed years ago is beyond stupid.

Now should they be doing this is a different question entirely.

Coupla points: Skin is as abrasive a poster as you'll find anywhere, but to suggest he's an idiot by "keeping things simple", well, that's just idiotic. Love him or hate him, he polarizes, but he's one of the most intelligent posters here. As are you Howard, which is sincerely meant. And yes, I hate it when he personally attacks posters, just like I hate it when any of us do.

The other point he makes, with a lot of support from Lurker, BTW, is that Congress will have no chance of changing any of this, nor should they be involved. I am of the same opinion, and that has been formed by Lurker's quoting the Supreme court decision, not my obvious affecction for Skin, whom I've met personally and is one of the nicest people you're ever likely to run into (as opposed to want to run over).

[SkinBasket]

You are obviously incapable of making an argument more nuanced than, "you are an idiot", so I'll make this simple enough for even you to comprehend:

Congress gave the NFL the anti-trust exemption, so they have the authority to take it away. It is really that simple.

To go on about excessive power and creating dictatorships for considering talking about repealing a law that they passed years ago is beyond stupid.

Now should they be doing this is a different question entirely.

I see you've aborted your actual argument. It's for the best. Raising and maintaining such a deformed little guy would have been a terrible burden.

Though you've simply moved onto your proposed dictatorship where Congress just "takes things away." Changing the heart is always more difficult than the mind.

Our federal government acting outside of it's authority isn't "beyond stupid." It's tyranny. Just because you've been convinced by big smiles and "free" stuff that it's a benevolent tyranny doesn't make it any less tyrannical. Neither does agreeing with the actions of said government. Lastly, just because you agree with the politics of an unjust government, does not inherently make both of you "right."

[SkinBasket]

Skin is as abrasive a poster as you'll find anywhere

Well, I'm no Partial, but thank you. I've only dropped the c-bomb once, and it was on Harlan, so it was obviously deserved.

I should apologize for calling him an idiot instead of his understanding of our federal government. I really should. I used to be more delicate that way.

[Patler]

Congress gave the NFL the anti-trust exemption, so they have the authority to take it away. It is really that simple.

To go on about excessive power and creating dictatorships for considering talking about repealing a law that they passed years ago is beyond stupid.

Now should they be doing this is a different question entirely.

Are you suggesting that Congress "gave" the NFL something with the exemption? That implies that the accepted state is for the government to control, interfere and regulate; and that it was a gift from Congress to refrain from doing that. Some would argue that the natural order is for people to have the freedom to do as they chose, and it is they, the people, who give the government limited power and authority only where it is essential. In that case, the question really is, should an exemption have been needed in the first place?

[SkinBasket]

He's complaining about the federal goverments involvement in this type of labor dispute. My point is, yeah, they should be able to interject because if there was no wealth redistribution, it would be a horrible place for people like me to live.

Fixed.

Checks and balances apply to the three branches of government. The federal government does not exist to provide a check and/or balance against it's citizens - even if they happen to own an NFL team. Again, this is stuff we learned from cartoons when we were children. Well, some of us. I guess the rest of us are too busy admiring ourselves in the mirror in our awesome new Chinese produced Che Guevara t-shirts to remember stuff like that.

[bobblehead]

The NFL, as well as other sports leagues, is a weird entity and if you were to tear it down and recreate it from scratch then it would be a very different entity. Many forms of "collusion" exist in the NFL because we recognize that some franchises are at an inherent advantage over other franchises due to geography, the independent wealth of the ownership, etc. and that the game as a product is best served by "colluding" to negate these advantages. This is why we have things like a draft and a salary cap. Without them, Jerry Jones would just sign Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Von Miller, Julius Jones, A.J. Green, Mark Ingram, etc. ad nauseum out of college. The league without things like a salary cap and a draft would be a very bad product compared to what we have currently.

The text of the American Needle v. NFL decision acknowledges this:





Were the NFL organized in 2011, with what we know now, it would literally be a single corporation and "team owners" would just be replaced by sufficiently invested stockholders. In that case, all the stuff they want to do that might be seen as "collusion" in the current system would be blatantly legal.

But the fact that the supreme court issued the above quotes in a decision, means that the NFL may actually have a chance against the NFLPA in an antitrust lawsuit. This is why it's surprising to me that the NFLPA chose litigation over negotiation. Since litigation is inherently uncertain, if the NFL can successfully beat back both an injunction preventing a lockout as well as an antitrust challenge... then the deal the players will have to accept will end up being significantly worse than anything the owners would offer them at the bargaining table.

which is why I always say the NFL as a whole is the corporation. Every team needs the others and it operates as ONE entity. If it didn't, I could start an expansion team and compete anytime I wished. I can not. I can however start a league and compete anytime I wish. Therefore, there is no such thing as "collusion" amongst owners who agree to certain terms to make the NFL as a whole successful. It also follows that they can choose any method amongst themselves to pay players however they wish, and the players are free to leave the NFL anytime they wish.

[Tarlam!]

Well, I'm no Partial, but thank you. I've only dropped the c-bomb once, and it was on Harlan, so it was obviously deserved.

I should apologize for calling him an idiot instead of his understanding of our federal government. I really should. I used to be more delicate that way.

There can only be one Partial, Tank and Skin, althouogh you definately do not belong in the same sentence as those two. I adore you, man. I love your wit and klnowing you, I get it. So many of these posters don't know you and don't know what an incredible person you are. And that I'm the luckiest guy (this life) girl (next life) for being the one that will have your babies.

Now, back to the thread - congress should go pass a bill for an 8 lane freeway from your hpuse to Lambeau, just to piss you off.

[SkinBasket]

There can only be one Partial, Tank and Skin, althouogh you definately do not belong in the same sentence as those two. I adore you, man. I love your wit and klnowing you, I get it. So many of these posters don't know you and don't know what an incredible person you are. And that I'm the luckiest guy (this life) girl (next life) for being the one that will have your babies.

Now, back to the thread - congress should go pass a bill for an 8 lane freeway from your hpuse to Lambeau, just to piss you off.

You're too sweet. I need to find a way to come visit you.

At least your proposed freeway would have more to do with general welfare and interstate commerce than what these yahoos are arguing.

[sharpe1027]

which is why I always say the NFL as a whole is the corporation. Every team needs the others and it operates as ONE entity. If it didn't, I could start an expansion team and compete anytime I wished. I can not. I can however start a league and compete anytime I wish. Therefore, there is no such thing as "collusion" amongst owners who agree to certain terms to make the NFL as a whole successful. It also follows that they can choose any method amongst themselves to pay players however they wish, and the players are free to leave the NFL anytime they wish.

First, individual companies can still break antitrust laws. Otherwise the Microsofts and Intels would not be defending themselves from antitrust allegations. Second, the problem is that each owner has his own business and represents this fact to the U.S. Government and to the general public. They file their taxes as individual businesses and do business with other businesses, people and even players while representing that they are separate entities. Once they do that, they can't then decide they want to be free to act as a single entity when it suits their purpose.

[Lurker64]

First, individual companies can still break antitrust laws. Otherwise the Microsofts and Intels would not be defending themselves from antitrust allegations. Second, the problem is that each owner has his own business and represents this fact to the U.S. Government and to the general public. They file their taxes as individual businesses and do business with other businesses, people and even players while representing that they are separate entities. Once they do that, they can't then decide they want to be free to act as a single entity when it suits their purpose.

Well, you can certainly commit antitrust violations by yourself. But all of the antitrust violations alleged by the players in Brady v. NFL (the salary cap, free agency restrictions, the draft, a rookie wage scale) would be entirely acceptable if the NFL were one corporation, since every corporation should have control over how much they pay their employees, whether or when they promote or transfer their employees, who they hire, etc.

[Pugger]

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/brady-vs-the-nfl-a-primer/

[bobblehead]

I clicked the link and could not find any explanation of what makes the quality of life high in these countries....do you know? The only thing that jumped out at me was that all of the counties are pretty lilly white, so I think this link could be racist.

I found what you were looking for Howard. Its the disclaimer right under the map.

"Disclaimer : All efforts have been made to make this image accurate. However Compare Infobase Limited,its directors and employees do not own any responsibility for the correctness or authenticity of the same. "

Translated this means "we are talking out of our ass with nothing to back our opinion....but these countries are liberal and progressive so it must be true."

[bobblehead]

Coupla points: Skin is as abrasive a poster as you'll find anywhere, but to suggest he's an idiot by "keeping things simple", well, that's just idiotic. Love him or hate him, he polarizes, but he's one of the most intelligent posters here. As are you Howard, which is sincerely meant. And yes, I hate it when he personally attacks posters, just like I hate it when any of us do.

The other point he makes, with a lot of support from Lurker, BTW, is that Congress will have no chance of changing any of this, nor should they be involved. I am of the same opinion, and that has been formed by Lurker's quoting the Supreme court decision, not my obvious affecction for Skin, whom I've met personally and is one of the nicest people you're ever likely to run into (as opposed to want to run over).

But mad is right on two counts tar. One, skin never wins any minds with his style. He makes me laugh quite often and is sharp, but you can't convince anyone of anything with his style. Two, the NFL should never have been given an anti trust status to begin with, so for the morons that gave it to them to reconsider is within the realm of things that may be right.

[bobblehead]

First, individual companies can still break antitrust laws. Otherwise the Microsofts and Intels would not be defending themselves from antitrust allegations. Second, the problem is that each owner has his own business and represents this fact to the U.S. Government and to the general public. They file their taxes as individual businesses and do business with other businesses, people and even players while representing that they are separate entities. Once they do that, they can't then decide they want to be free to act as a single entity when it suits their purpose.

You are right in the first part, but as far as filing taxes seperate and then acting as a single entity....well, that is a franchise and its exactly what each team is. The NFL is unique only in that they directly compete for entertainment, therefore its much trickier than most situations. But, all franchises have to answer to the parent corporation for quality of product and such, and in the case of the NFL, the only way you can advance the name brand is by divvying up the talent. Which is why the arrangement with revenue sharing and in turn forcing owners to spend XX dollars minimum is so vital to the overall brand.

Now, my point about anti trust is that the cowboys can't really be "anti trust" against the packers, but the NFL can against another company. The NFL is the company, not the cowboys. McDonalds franchise owner one can't get sued for anti trust by McDonalds owner two. They both must abide by the rules of the parent company because they are franchises....which is all NFL teams are. The NFL sets the rules (salary cap, revenue sharing, etc) to grow the brand in the best possible way. Teams work together as franchises, they don't compete. The NFL has done a poor job of legallly arranging their operations or else they wouldn't need an anti trust exemption as they would be "exempt" from it by their set up. McDonalds can be guilty of anti trust violations against Burger King, but not against itself.

[bobblehead]

Well, you can certainly commit antitrust violations by yourself. But all of the antitrust violations alleged by the players in Brady v. NFL (the salary cap, free agency restrictions, the draft, a rookie wage scale) would be entirely acceptable if the NFL were one corporation, since every corporation should have control over how much they pay their employees, whether or when they promote or transfer their employees, who they hire, etc.

Ok, Lurker has better brevity than I do.

[bobblehead]

One last point on all of this. If the players win their argument, the NFL will become garbage. If I were an owner who wasn't happy about it I would field a team of 40k a year players and go 0-16 never scoring a point and allowing 75 a game. I would collect billions from my share of the TV revenues, sell zero tickets and laugh all the way to the bank....I am my own corporation after all and have no obligation to field a competitive team....

[sharpe1027]

Well, you can certainly commit antitrust violations by yourself. But all of the antitrust violations alleged by the players in Brady v. NFL (the salary cap, free agency restrictions, the draft, a rookie wage scale) would be entirely acceptable if the NFL were one corporation, since every corporation should have control over how much they pay their employees, whether or when they promote or transfer their employees, who they hire, etc.

I do not believe that is true.

[sharpe1027]

You are right in the first part, but as far as filing taxes seperate and then acting as a single entity....well, that is a franchise and its exactly what each team is. The NFL is unique only in that they directly compete for entertainment, therefore its much trickier than most situations. But, all franchises have to answer to the parent corporation for quality of product and such, and in the case of the NFL, the only way you can advance the name brand is by divvying up the talent. Which is why the arrangement with revenue sharing and in turn forcing owners to spend XX dollars minimum is so vital to the overall brand.

Now, my point about anti trust is that the cowboys can't really be "anti trust" against the packers, but the NFL can against another company. The NFL is the company, not the cowboys. McDonalds franchise owner one can't get sued for anti trust by McDonalds owner two. They both must abide by the rules of the parent company because they are franchises....which is all NFL teams are. The NFL sets the rules (salary cap, revenue sharing, etc) to grow the brand in the best possible way. Teams work together as franchises, they don't compete. The NFL has done a poor job of legallly arranging their operations or else they wouldn't need an anti trust exemption as they would be "exempt" from it by their set up. McDonalds can be guilty of anti trust violations against Burger King, but not against itself.

No NFL team is suing another NFL team, so your analogy doesn't make sense to me.

[Lurker64]

I do not believe that is true.

Which part? That a corporation should not have control over who they hire, where their employees work, and how much their employees get paid? Or that the Brady et. al.'s complaint is not about things like the Salary Cap, free agency restrictions, the rookie wage scale, and the draft?

[sharpe1027]

Which part? That a corporation should not have control over who they hire, where their employees work, and how much their employees get paid? Or that the Brady et. al.'s complaint is not about things like the Salary Cap, free agency restrictions, the rookie wage scale, and the draft?

Sorry, I meant this part: "antitrust violations alleged by the players in Brady v. NFL (the salary cap, free agency restrictions, the draft, a rookie wage scale) would be entirely acceptable if the NFL were one corporation".

What basis do you have to say this?

[Lurker64]

Sorry, I meant this part: "antitrust violations alleged by the players in Brady v. NFL (the salary cap, free agency restrictions, the draft, a rookie wage scale) would be entirely acceptable if the NFL were one corporation".

What basis do you have to say this?

Okay, if the NFL were one corporation with 32 divisions.

Salary Cap: The NFL is simply setting a budget for employee costs for each division. Every corporation sets budgets like this. It's no different than any random company telling its IT department "You only have so much money to spend on personnel".

Free Agency Restrictions: the NFL is simply restricting when employees are eligible for transfers/promotions/raises. No corporation gives out these things just because you want them without concern for qualification.

The draft: The NFL allows its divisions to choose the most promising incoming employees. This is simply tantamount to allowing its branches to decide who to hire to do what. You can't say a corporation shouldn't have discretion on who they hire and what tasks they assign to that person.

Rookie Wage Structure: Incoming employees have fixed salaries as a function of qualifications. This is extremely common.

What have I described that wouldn't be acceptable if the NFL were one corporation?

Remember, that the anti-trust charges alleged by the players is that 32 separate businesses have colluded to pay their employees less. If one business decides that they want to pay their employees less, there's nothing a priori wrong with that, particularly if they choose to honor all existing contracts.

[sharpe1027]

Okay, if the NFL were one corporation with 32 divisions.

Salary Cap: The NFL is simply setting a budget for employee costs for each division. Every corporation sets budgets like this. It's no different than any random company telling its IT department "You only have so much money to spend on personnel".

Free Agency Restrictions: the NFL is simply restricting when employees are eligible for transfers/promotions/raises. No corporation gives out these things just because you want them without concern for qualification.

The draft: The NFL allows its divisions to choose the most promising incoming employees. This is simply tantamount to allowing its branches to decide who to hire to do what. You can't say a corporation shouldn't have discretion on who they hire and what tasks they assign to that person.

Rookie Wage Structure: Incoming employees have fixed salaries as a function of qualifications. This is extremely common.

What have I described that wouldn't be acceptable if the NFL were one corporation?

Even a single company can be subject to antitrust. A company cannot use its monopoly power in an anticompetitive fashion.

I think that the player's current complaint states that the relevant market is the market for the services of professional football players. NFL controls pretty much the entire market for services of professional football players, so this is not the same as a standard employee-employer relationship.

Since the NFL has nearly 100% monopoly power, I would expect that the players would able to come up with a decent position regardless. For example, if the NFL, even a single organization, uses it monopoly power (i.e., a lockout) to suppress competition in the market for services of professional football players, it might still be a problem.

[Lurker64]

Even a single company can be subject to antitrust. A company cannot use its monopoly power in an anticompetitive fashion.

I think that the player's current complaint states that the relevant market is the market for the services of professional football players. NFL controls pretty much the entire market for services of professional football players, so this is not the same as a standard employee-employer relationship.

Since the NFL has nearly 100% monopoly power, I would expect that the players would able to come up with a decent position regardless. For example, if the NFL, even a single organization, uses it monopoly power (i.e., a lockout) to suppress competition in the market for services of professional football players, it might still be a problem.

Anti-Trust Law has three main concerns:

* agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business.
* abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position.
* mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures.

Currently, the NFLPA's antitrust allegations are entirely along the first bullet point. It's clearly an antitrust violation for any number of independent businesses to collude to drive up or down specific prices. A corporation that is a single entity cannot "restrict competition or free trading" with itself, particularly since the league can (and does) take no action to drive any potential competitors out of business.

So if the league were one entity, the heart of the NFLPA's complaint is that "It is abusive to pay Peyton Manning only $10m for a one year contract" and "It is abusive to not guarantee $50m to rookie #1 overall draft picks" which is a very weak argument. Especially since this behavior is not intended to dominate the market, it's intended to protect the bottom line. If some other league were to come along and offer Peyton Manning $20m/year for 5 years, the NFL's position does nothing to prevent or undermine this.

One company electing not to pay their employees even more in order to protect the bottom line simply cannot be an antitrust violation. Remember, antitrust law does not exist to punish businesses and protect labor. Labor laws do that. Antitrust laws are in existence to promote competition, as the stated purpose of the antitrust laws are to protect consumers.

[sharpe1027]

Anti-Trust Law has three main concerns:

* agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business.
* abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position.
* mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures.

Currently, the NFLPA's antitrust allegations are entirely along the first bullet point. It's clearly an antitrust violation for any number of independent businesses to collude to drive up or down specific prices. A corporation that is a single entity cannot "restrict competition or free trading" with itself, particularly since the league can (and does) take no action to drive any potential competitors out of business.

So if the league were one entity, the heart of the NFLPA's complaint is that "It is abusive to pay Peyton Manning only $10m for a one year contract" and "It is abusive to not guarantee $50m to rookie #1 overall draft picks" which is a very weak argument. Especially since this behavior is not intended to dominate the market, it's intended to protect the bottom line. If some other league were to come along and offer Peyton Manning $20m/year for 5 years, the NFL's position does nothing to prevent or undermine this.

One company electing not to pay their employees even more in order to protect the bottom line simply cannot be an antitrust violation. Remember, antitrust law does not exist to punish businesses and protect labor. Labor laws do that. Antitrust laws are in existence to promote competition.

Well, I doubt they would bring exactly the same argument, and they also did not argue what you stated above (i.e., that it is not fair to pay a certain amount). It would probably not be about paying their employees a certain amount but rather about specific actions they use to suppress competition. I would bet that the player's lawyers could come up with a good position that the NFL is engaging in "abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market."

My point is simply that the fact that the current structure makes the player's case a virtual slam dunk (at least in some regards) does not mean that a different structure would solve all issues for the owners.

[Lurker64]

My point is simply that the fact that the current structure makes the player's case a virtual slam dunk (at least in some regards) does not mean that a different structure would solve all issues for the owners.

It's actually not a slam-dunk at all, if you carefully read the text of the American Needle decision. The text of the decision does recognize that the NFL does have an interest in collective action in order to improve competition on the field. In keeping with this, the league simply has to argue that decisions like the salary cap and the draft are simply intended to encourage parity and to prevent one team from dominating the field, which would drive down the value of the product for everybody.

I would not be surprised at all if, assuming Brady v. NFL goes all the way to the supreme court that the court sides with the league in that it's equally reasonable for a league to set off-field rules intended to further on-field competition as it is to set on-field rules intended to further on-field competition.

[sharpe1027]

It's actually not a slam-dunk at all, if you carefully read the text of the American Needle decision. The text of the decision does recognize that the NFL does have an interest in collective action in order to improve competition on the field. In keeping with this, the league simply has to argue that decisions like the salary cap and the draft are simply intended to encourage parity and to prevent one team from dominating the field, which would drive down the value of the product for everybody.

I would not be surprised at all if, assuming Brady v. NFL goes all the way to the supreme court that the court sides with the league in that it's equally reasonable for a league to set off-field rules intended to further on-field competition as it is to set on-field rules intended to further on-field competition.

I made certain that I qualified the slam dunk to only be with "at least in some regards." ;) In this case, the "at least in some regards" would be that there are separate teams that work together to agree on the acts (salary cap, etc.). Now, whether or not the acts are antitrust violations is another matter.