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

[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.