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

[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.