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

[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...-broadcasting/

[rbaloha1]

Florio makes several salient points: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-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.