Injunction Junction

[pbmax]

Why would the league year calendar need to be reset to Day 1 if the League prevails after the lockout was enjoined? There was substantial uncertainty about League rules last year; both that they had changed and no one was certain of the impact and the fact that entirely new rules would likely be in place for 2011.

Is there that much more uncertainty now? I am not sure scrambled eggs is the right metaphor. Walking through a minefield, maybe.

It would definitely mean a signing bonus is a risk, but there are other mechanisms available (and other dates).

[Patler]

I love the arguments in litigation! The players argued that "the lockout is inflicting irreparable harm on their brief playing careers by preventing them from working out at team headquarters, holding full practices with teammates and coaches and jeopardizing games." Then, when the get around to negotiating the new CBA they will argue for less and less mandatory activity during the off season. Many don't train at the team facilities unless required, don't show up for voluntary camps, etc.

[Patler]

Why would the league year calendar need to be reset to Day 1 if the League prevails after the lockout was enjoined? There was substantial uncertainty about League rules last year; both that they had changed and no one was certain of the impact and the fact that entirely new rules would likely be in place for 2011.

Is there that much more uncertainty now? I am not sure scrambled eggs is the right metaphor. Walking through a minefield, maybe.

It would definitely mean a signing bonus is a risk, but there are other mechanisms available (and other dates).

It might require both parties agreeing to a transition year if the injunction is enacted lifting the lockout under one set of rules and the rules are changed by a new CBA. Making the CBA effective for the following league year would seem to do it. It certainly doesn't seem to be an insurmountable task, does it? The biggest obstacle would be that it would require some cooperation between the owners and players.

[Tarlam!]

Funny thing is, I spent a big part of my career negotiating deals, and had a reputation of being good for both sides. The deals I was a part of worked for both sides.

After you bent them over the board room, had the drop their pants and had your way woth thim, what else do you think they were were gonna say?

[Zool]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

[Smidgeon]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

For me, it depends on what the product looks like on the other side...

[Guiness]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

Yup. I'm not a big NBA fan but can forgive them for going out, because their system is badly broken. If they fix it, fine.

MLB was/is broken. Difference with them is that they went out, but didn't fix any of their problems.

My issue with the NFL is that nothing was broken, the league was good and healthy. And they're messing it up.

[bobblehead]

Bobble makes the case that perhaps the NFL should have an exemption like baseball. But the feeling that always emerges on Capitol Hill when the question gets discussed is a near universal refusal to grant an exemption to another league. The general feeling is that the exemption has harmed baseball more than helped it.

Thats not quite right pb. I don't like anti trust exemption for anyone...baseball or NFL included. I believe competition makes the world advance and I want the NFL to be challenged when they slip. Where I disagree is that the courts have treated 32 FRANCHISES as seperate businesses and applied anti trust laws to them that should not be. One godfathers pizza place does NOT compete with the next, but they all compete with pizza hut. The parent company sets workplace rules to benefit all owners and by extension employees.

The only sense of the work where the Cowboys compete with the Packers is on the field, but when it comes to growing the NFL pie they work in unison. Now....if the players wish to decertify and ask for a free for all, that is not their right. They can choose to leave the NFL to work in any other football league they wish, but the NFL requires competitive balance to be enjoyable. Trying to compare and NFL employee to a godfathers employee and saying he should be allowed to go work for a different godfathers is apples and oranges. The very product the NFL is built around means we need certain rules to assure a decent product on the field. It is in the CONSUMERS best interest. It also happens to be in the players (employees) best interest overall.

Now, we can go to a free for all system like Mr. Smith wants, and I guess you could argue that its the right thing under the law as the above paragraph is hard to prove, but if we do that, everyone loses. The fans lose the great product, the owners and players lose money. Anti trust laws are designed to ensure against that very thing.

[get louder at lambeau]

Get what you can, while you can is the idea for both sides. The situation is hurting the NFL and future players with a lockout IMO. I'm starting to get annoyed by the whole thing. If it extends into the season, it will change my view of the league for ever. Much like MLB did and the NBA will probably do this offseason.

Most casual fans don't even know what's happening right now, and won't until games are missed. Hardcore football fans will come back anyway, because they're hardcore fans. I don't think the NFL will lose much of anything unless they miss a significant amount of the regular season.

[pbmax]

Thats not quite right pb. I don't like anti trust exemption for anyone...baseball or NFL included. I believe competition makes the world advance and I want the NFL to be challenged when they slip. Where I disagree is that the courts have treated 32 FRANCHISES as seperate businesses and applied anti trust laws to them that should not be. One godfathers pizza place does NOT compete with the next, but they all compete with pizza hut. The parent company sets workplace rules to benefit all owners and by extension employees.

The only sense of the work where the Cowboys compete with the Packers is on the field, but when it comes to growing the NFL pie they work in unison. Now....if the players wish to decertify and ask for a free for all, that is not their right. They can choose to leave the NFL to work in any other football league they wish, but the NFL requires competitive balance to be enjoyable. Trying to compare and NFL employee to a godfathers employee and saying he should be allowed to go work for a different godfathers is apples and oranges. The very product the NFL is built around means we need certain rules to assure a decent product on the field. It is in the CONSUMERS best interest. It also happens to be in the players (employees) best interest overall.

Now, we can go to a free for all system like Mr. Smith wants, and I guess you could argue that its the right thing under the law as the above paragraph is hard to prove, but if we do that, everyone loses. The fans lose the great product, the owners and players lose money. Anti trust laws are designed to ensure against that very thing.

I don't think Smith, nor any player, wants a completely free system and its a strawman argument to suggest they do. Anti-trust is the point of the players greatest leverage currently. But they will happily concede if owners move toward their position. Just like I believe the NFL does not want HGH testing and absolutely doesn't want WADA conducting the tests. I actually think the league would survive and do well, but I doubt any current participant wants to take a step backward to take two steps forward.

As for pizza versus sport, I don't think they are comparable. No pizza franchise controls the market like the NFL. And unless you envision the league letting the Cowboys open a small developmental franchise in Appleton, they will not come to resemble each other any time soon. They behave and indeed have been found multiple times over to act in anti-competitive ways that violate anti-trust laws. You do not need to be 32 separate entities to violate anti-trust laws. A singe entity that engaged in exclusive stadium and TV deals would face the same kind of scrutiny. Only it might not be the players fighting it, it would be the next USFL.

[get louder at lambeau]

As for pizza versus sport, I don't think they are comparable. No pizza franchise controls the market like the NFL. And unless you envision the league letting the Cowboys open a small developmental franchise in Appleton, they will not come to resemble each other any time soon.

I kinda like the pizza franchise analogy. Godfathers Pizza wouldn't have to allow one of it's franchisees to open another location in Appleton if it didn't want to, as far as I can think, so I'm not sure what you are saying there.

The main thing that makes the NFL different and subject to antitrust legislation is market share. If the NFL didn't control so much of the industry of professional football, it would be much more like Godfather's, but they do, and that changes everything as you mentioned.

[bobblehead]

If they tried to negotiate a TV contract with NBC and stipulated that NBC can't show any other football, that would be an anti trust violation. If they simply dominate the market share so broadly that no one WANTS to show or watch any other football....well, that is called crushing the competition legitimately.

[pbmax]

I kinda like the pizza franchise analogy. Godfathers Pizza wouldn't have to allow one of it's franchisees to open another location in Appleton if it didn't want to, as far as I can think, so I'm not sure what you are saying there.

The main thing that makes the NFL different and subject to antitrust legislation is market share. If the NFL didn't control so much of the industry of professional football, it would be much more like Godfather's, but they do, and that changes everything as you mentioned.

Much depends on the franchiser, but some franchisee owners can pick when and where. The franchiser controls territories to prevent overlap. But you are right, if the NFL wasn't in its dominating position, it wouldn't be an issue. But the number and location of franchises comes up in every Congressional discussion of sports legislation.

[pbmax]

If they tried to negotiate a TV contract with NBC and stipulated that NBC can't show any other football, that would be an anti trust violation. If they simply dominate the market share so broadly that no one WANTS to show or watch any other football....well, that is called crushing the competition legitimately.

I agree. However, if memory serves, the NFL wrote memos to both the Networks and its advertisers that stated it would be difficult for it to continue to do business if they were not their exclusive outlet for professional football entertainment. In tone the memos tried to strike a chord that the NFL was like a song that would only be licensed to appear in commercials for one supplier in one market segment at a time. Basically that they wouldn't do business with them if other professional football appeared in the fall.

As I said, until recently, the League has shot itself in the foot over anti-trust multiple times.

[Guiness]

dp