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

[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....