What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

Orange Crush

Orange Crush

Footballguy
Sources: NFLPA to decertify by March 3

Absent a last-minute agreement that no one around football expects, the NFL Players Association plans to decertify by Thursday in an effort to pre-empt an owners-generated lockout, according to multiple league and union sources.The collective bargaining agreement says the NFLPA in effect must wait six months to decertify if it does it after the collective bargaining agreement expires. It expires at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night.

If the union decertifies, it is no longer a union, and the National Labor Relations Board loses its hold over the NFLPA. The owners are expected to claim the decertification is a sham and challenge it in the NLRB.

But the NFLPA is poised to act this week before it is locked out. It already has obtained unanimous approval from players across the league to decertify, a process it undertook throughout last season and the union's executive committee reaffirmed that vote this past Tuesday to empower NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith to take this action.

The primary reason for decertification would be to file for an injunction that, if granted, would prevent the owners from locking out the players. NFLPA officials and players believe that this could be the only hope to have a full NFL season next year. Furthermore, decertifying as a union prior to the expiration of the CBA would allow NFL players to seek injunctive relief and commence anti-trust action against owners in front of U.S. District Court Judge David Doty, who has had jurisdiction over the current labor agreement since 1993. Owners have attempted unsuccessfully to have Doty removed from jurisdiction and strategically want the CBA to expire to effectively eliminate his authority, a source said.

The NFL and NFLPA are scheduled to meet with federal mediator George Cohen one more time on Tuesday, yet after seven days of meetings last week, Cohen said significant differences still remain.
Click to expand...
I must admit to being a little surprised here. By decertifying early, the union is admitted to itself that the players cannot and will not be able to outlast the owners when the games are missed, and that there's no way to get anything close to what they want via negotiations ... i.e. the negotiations are currently a waste of time. By decertifying, there's no point in having a lockout. A lockout is done because the employers are saying that the employees as a collective unit aren't agreeing to work under conditions that will make the business profitable. Without a union, there's no collective unit to negotiate with, so the employers can take whatever action they deem necessary to be a profitable enterprise. The only problem for them is that, in the eyes of the law, there are 32 separate competing employers in the NFL, and any agreement among them will be challenged as a violation of antitrust law in federal court.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If this doesn't force a deal, the NFL as we know it (have known it) is dead.

No more draft and each team fends for itself with all players going to the highest bidder. Small market teams will be crushed. I don't even know if Green Bay would be able to continue as is. This could force some teams to dissolve.

I love the NFL and the way it's been, but if this happens I don't know if I would even watch anymore.

 
I'm not sure the League would lose its anti trust exemption, just because the union decertifies. I think the union decertifing is not so much about preventing a lockout as it is an attempt to file "meaningful" litigation prior the the CBA expiring, so it would still fall under the David Doty's juristicsion. The league desperatly was the CBA to expire if only for a minute to escape Doty'd rule.

 
'Yellow Line is Unoffcial said:
I'm not sure the League would lose its anti trust exemption, just because the union decertifies. I think the union decertifing is not so much about preventing a lockout as it is an attempt to file "meaningful" litigation prior the the CBA expiring, so it would still fall under the David Doty's juristicsion. The league desperatly was the CBA to expire if only for a minute to escape Doty'd rule.
Click to expand...
I think I read where the union has decertified before. That led to almost no free agency until the players gained some ground there. I think the draft will stay. Not sure about free agency. Owners will have a lot more say but could loss anti trust suit.The decertified position could give us football in 2011.
 
'GunslingerEnder said:
If this doesn't force a deal, the NFL as we know it (have known it) is dead.No more draft and each team fends for itself with all players going to the highest bidder. Small market teams will be crushed. I don't even know if Green Bay would be able to continue as is. This could force some teams to dissolve.I love the NFL and the way it's been, but if this happens I don't know if I would even watch anymore.
Click to expand...
Don't be so alarmist. The Union has decertified before, and the NFL has lost every single antitrust lawsuit it has fought in court, and yet the NFL is still, currently, the grand champion of sports leagues. That being said, some major, major changes could end up being the result of this after a few years of litigation and negotiation, such as no more salary cap and no more rookie draft. I, personally, do not see that happening, but we'll just have to wait and watch. And in the meantime, what we'll be watching most is actual football games.
 
'Yellow Line is Unoffcial said:
I'm not sure the League would lose its anti trust exemption, just because the union decertifies. I think the union decertifing is not so much about preventing a lockout as it is an attempt to file "meaningful" litigation prior the the CBA expiring, so it would still fall under the David Doty's juristicsion. The league desperatly was the CBA to expire if only for a minute to escape Doty'd rule.
Click to expand...
The only antitrust exemption the NFL enjoys is a limited exemption to negotiate broadcast contracts as a collective unit and not 32 separate, independent teams. But, the decertification is to both prevent a lockout AND keep the NFL's labor issues under the supervision of Judge Doty.
 
'markb said:
'Yellow Line is Unoffcial said:
I'm not sure the League would lose its anti trust exemption, just because the union decertifies. I think the union decertifing is not so much about preventing a lockout as it is an attempt to file "meaningful" litigation prior the the CBA expiring, so it would still fall under the David Doty's juristicsion. The league desperatly was the CBA to expire if only for a minute to escape Doty'd rule.
Click to expand...
I think I read where the union has decertified before. That led to almost no free agency until the players gained some ground there. I think the draft will stay. Not sure about free agency. Owners will have a lot more say but could loss anti trust suit.The decertified position could give us football in 2011.
Click to expand...
The previous decertification led to free agency. Before the last decertification there was effectively no free agency. Well, first there was only free agency if the team signing another team's player gave up an obscenely high price in draft picks that they never would have given in a trade, so, no free agency. Later, after negotiations broke down, the NFL instituted a limited free agency where every team could protect 37 players, regardless of their contract status. It was when Judge Doty informed the NFL that they were about to lose, and lose badly, the antitrust lawsuit brought against it by several players, that the NFL finally engaged in meaningful negotiations and a CBA was formed as a settlement agreement to end the lawsuits. And what followed was the longest period of labor peace in any major sport in the history of American major sports. That the NFLPA is going straight at decertification again means that they really have learned the lessons from their past, and recognize that antitrust actions are the only real cudgel they have to use against the owners. Nothing else is likely to work at all. IIt's also the strategy most likely to gain favor with football fans, as it keeps games being played and money coming in. It's just that, until the two sides reach a new agreement (a process that is now likely to take years) the owners will be taking a much bigger piece of the football revenue pie.

 
If the union goes through with decertification, the N.F.L.’s labor dispute could end up winding its way through the courts, where most of the players’ gains — including free agency — have come. It is unclear if games would be played during that process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/sports/football/27nfl.html

Orange Crush, your analysis made me feel more comfortable about games being played through this court process...can you explain why or why not they would be? if the union does go through with decertifying

 
'Scruff Mcgruff said:
If the union goes through with decertification, the N.F.L.'s labor dispute could end up winding its way through the courts, where most of the players' gains — including free agency — have come. It is unclear if games would be played during that process.

http://www.nytimes.c...ball/27nfl.html

Orange Crush, your analysis made me feel more comfortable about games being played through this court process...can you explain why or why not they would be? if the union does go through with decertifying
Click to expand...
The common thinking on the matter is that the NFL would be unable to commence a lockout, as that is a strategy strictly used in labor negotiations. Decertification means that there is no labor union to negotiate with, and thus there can be no lockout. If the NFL owners still initiated a lockout, that would be an agreement among the 32 teams to engage in collective behavior and that itself would be an antitrust violation. Individual players would challenge that in court and get an injunction against the NFL to end the lockout and let them back to work. However, there's a theory, which has never been tested in court, that suggests that a lockout could still be commenced because instead of the lockout being deemed as collective action within a market, the lockout is a removal of the market itself. This theory relies on the finding of the NFL as a monopoly in previous court cases. Collective action within a market = antitrust violation. Collective action to remove the market = no antitrust violation. Will that work? Don't know. It's never been tried before. But, assuming decertification goes through, it's about to be.

First, though, the NFL is going to challenge the decertification as a sham. That's what their earlier complaint filed with the NRLB aimed at. We'll see if that works first, in an attempt to keep the union active. If it doesn't, then they'll try a lockout, which players will immediately challenge in court (probably in front of Judge Doty, which scares the crap out of the NFL). If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Orange Crush said:
'Scruff Mcgruff said:
If the union goes through with decertification, the N.F.L.'s labor dispute could end up winding its way through the courts, where most of the players' gains including free agency have come. It is unclear if games would be played during that process.

http://www.nytimes.c...ball/27nfl.html

Orange Crush, your analysis made me feel more comfortable about games being played through this court process...can you explain why or why not they would be? if the union does go through with decertifying
Click to expand...
The common thinking on the matter is that the NFL would be unable to commence a lockout, as that is a strategy strictly used in labor negotiations. Decertification means that there is no labor union to negotiate with, and thus there can be no lockout. If the NFL owners still initiated a lockout, that would be an agreement among the 32 teams to engage in collective behavior and that itself would be an antitrust violation. Individual players would challenge that in court and get an injunction against the NFL to end the lockout and let them back to work. However, there's a theory, which has never been tested in court, that suggests that a lockout could still be commenced because instead of the lockout being deemed as collective action within a market, the lockout is a removal of the market itself. This theory relies on the finding of the NFL as a monopoly in previous court cases. Collective action within a market = antitrust violation. Collective action to remove the market = no antitrust violation. Will that work? Don't know. It's never been tried before. But, assuming decertification goes through, it's about to be.

First, though, the NFL is going to challenge the decertification as a sham. That's what their earlier complaint filed with the NRLB aimed at. We'll see if that works first, in an attempt to keep the union active. If it doesn't, then they'll try a lockout, which players will immediately challenge in court (probably in front of Judge Doty, which scares the crap out of the NFL). If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
In 1989, the Union decertified and that led to replacement games, scab players crossing picket lines, and a messy settlement.What legal precidents have been placed that make a similar scenario unworkable? What's changed in labor law, since then, to make this settlement process different?

At this point, a "Work Stoppage" (the operative term) seems to be a 100 percent certainty. Having the Owner's "negoiate amongst themselves to inable a process that leads to a full set of games" is laugh-able. The players ain't going to work under those circumstances, they'll just deny their services and continue with the work stoppage.

"A new set of rules" that with stands the light of day of an anti-trust court challenge? That's a concept that's yet to be developed and I don't see the Owner's being able to float that boat. There's no "brand new" solution out there that has not been examined, thoroughly, in the precidents of previous labor law. True or false? If there's light at the end of that statement, lay it on me.

We're headed to zero salary time for the Commish and a major mess for the game we follow. :coffee:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Toads said:
'Orange Crush said:
'Scruff Mcgruff said:
If the union goes through with decertification, the N.F.L.'s labor dispute could end up winding its way through the courts, where most of the players' gains — including free agency — have come. It is unclear if games would be played during that process.

http://www.nytimes.c...ball/27nfl.html

Orange Crush, your analysis made me feel more comfortable about games being played through this court process...can you explain why or why not they would be? if the union does go through with decertifying
Click to expand...
The common thinking on the matter is that the NFL would be unable to commence a lockout, as that is a strategy strictly used in labor negotiations. Decertification means that there is no labor union to negotiate with, and thus there can be no lockout. If the NFL owners still initiated a lockout, that would be an agreement among the 32 teams to engage in collective behavior and that itself would be an antitrust violation. Individual players would challenge that in court and get an injunction against the NFL to end the lockout and let them back to work. However, there's a theory, which has never been tested in court, that suggests that a lockout could still be commenced because instead of the lockout being deemed as collective action within a market, the lockout is a removal of the market itself. This theory relies on the finding of the NFL as a monopoly in previous court cases. Collective action within a market = antitrust violation. Collective action to remove the market = no antitrust violation. Will that work? Don't know. It's never been tried before. But, assuming decertification goes through, it's about to be.

First, though, the NFL is going to challenge the decertification as a sham. That's what their earlier complaint filed with the NRLB aimed at. We'll see if that works first, in an attempt to keep the union active. If it doesn't, then they'll try a lockout, which players will immediately challenge in court (probably in front of Judge Doty, which scares the crap out of the NFL). If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
In 1989, the Union decertified and that led to replacement games, scab players crossing picket lines, and a messy settlement.What legal precidents have been placed that make a similar scenario unworkable? What's changed in labor law, since then, to make this settlement process different?

At this point, a "Work Stoppage" (the operative term) seems to be a 100 percent certainty. Having the Owner's "negoiate amongst themselves to inable a process that leads to a full set of games" is laugh-able. The players ain't going to work under those circumstances, they'll just deny their services and continue with the work stoppage.

"A new set of rules" that with stands the light of day of an anti-trust court challenge? That's a concept that's yet to be developed and I don't see the Owner's being able to float that boat. There's no "brand new" solution out there that has not been examined, thoroughly, in the precidents of previous labor law. True or false? If there's light at the end of that statement, lay it on me.

We're headed to zero salary time for the Commish and a major mess for the game we follow. :coffee:
Click to expand...
To what I bolded, decertification doesn't give the players much choice. They either play or sit out under contract for no money. Players will play under those conditions just like many decided during the strike.The strike and replacement players happened in 1987. The union failed completely so they decided to decertify. After decertification, games continued under the owners' rules and Reggie White sued. Reggie won and that forced the NFL to agree to free agency in exchange for a salary cap (and floor). If the union decertifies this time, I think the same scenario plays out. The players play under the NFL's rules and individuals will challenge them in court. They likely win in a couple of years and force the NFL to come back to the table and negotiate.

 
I don't think that they'll win, but I'm not so sure that the NFL is wrong about the decertification being a sham. Is De Smith really just going to put himself out of a job and have nothing to do with the players at this point? Or is it likely that the players "decertify" but essentially keep the NFLPA in place?

And IMO, there are a lot of negative consequences for the players too that they're not really thinking through. A lot of the licensing for merchandise is done with an agreemen through the NFLPA. That all goes away. So what happens to jersey sales, the Madden franchise, etc.?

 
Decertification is the unions primary strategy. Honestly, how can it be proved that it's a sham. They are going through 7 to 10 days of negotiating. They have the right to decertify. I am guessing that the decertification will be allowed. Whether we like it or not, this is the best hope for football in 2011

 
Decertification worked the last time, but the players almost immediately reformed a union. While that Union did not hold CB powers at first, they were offically unionized and given those powers the second the NFL agreed to negotiate.

The NFL will have a pretty strong case here for the NLRB if the union decertifies before a lockout, as it's pretty clear the decertification is a power move...not a true desire to dissolve a union.

Entities like the NFL can't exist in a true "free market" and still provide the same value to its fans. We know it, the owners know it, and the players know it. Unfortunately, the players are the one group that wouldn't/shouldn't care. They want theirs, and it doesn't matter if it sends the game into a long death-spiral, because such an end will come long after they've collected their millions and retired at an obscenely young age. IMHO, the NFL should have been granted more antitrust exemptions long ago, but with more oversight, simply BECAUSE the players union has such a naturally short outlook.

Other professional leagues exist...the players could go play for the UFL or the CFL. They don't want to because the NFL provides a MUCH higher income and a lot more prestige. IN few other businesses on the planet can multiple top employees pull salaries which are nearly as high as the business owner who hired them. The owners shouldn't have to open their books. Most of the pertinant info is already open enough.

 
'Mello said:
'Toads said:
'Orange Crush said:
'Scruff Mcgruff said:
If the union goes through with decertification, the N.F.L.'s labor dispute could end up winding its way through the courts, where most of the players' gains — including free agency — have come. It is unclear if games would be played during that process.

http://www.nytimes.c...ball/27nfl.html

Orange Crush, your analysis made me feel more comfortable about games being played through this court process...can you explain why or why not they would be? if the union does go through with decertifying
Click to expand...
The common thinking on the matter is that the NFL would be unable to commence a lockout, as that is a strategy strictly used in labor negotiations. Decertification means that there is no labor union to negotiate with, and thus there can be no lockout. If the NFL owners still initiated a lockout, that would be an agreement among the 32 teams to engage in collective behavior and that itself would be an antitrust violation. Individual players would challenge that in court and get an injunction against the NFL to end the lockout and let them back to work. However, there's a theory, which has never been tested in court, that suggests that a lockout could still be commenced because instead of the lockout being deemed as collective action within a market, the lockout is a removal of the market itself. This theory relies on the finding of the NFL as a monopoly in previous court cases. Collective action within a market = antitrust violation. Collective action to remove the market = no antitrust violation. Will that work? Don't know. It's never been tried before. But, assuming decertification goes through, it's about to be.

First, though, the NFL is going to challenge the decertification as a sham. That's what their earlier complaint filed with the NRLB aimed at. We'll see if that works first, in an attempt to keep the union active. If it doesn't, then they'll try a lockout, which players will immediately challenge in court (probably in front of Judge Doty, which scares the crap out of the NFL). If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
In 1989, the Union decertified and that led to replacement games, scab players crossing picket lines, and a messy settlement.What legal precidents have been placed that make a similar scenario unworkable? What's changed in labor law, since then, to make this settlement process different?

At this point, a "Work Stoppage" (the operative term) seems to be a 100 percent certainty. Having the Owner's "negoiate amongst themselves to inable a process that leads to a full set of games" is laugh-able. The players ain't going to work under those circumstances, they'll just deny their services and continue with the work stoppage.

"A new set of rules" that with stands the light of day of an anti-trust court challenge? That's a concept that's yet to be developed and I don't see the Owner's being able to float that boat. There's no "brand new" solution out there that has not been examined, thoroughly, in the precidents of previous labor law. True or false? If there's light at the end of that statement, lay it on me.

We're headed to zero salary time for the Commish and a major mess for the game we follow. :boxing:
Click to expand...
To what I bolded, decertification doesn't give the players much choice. They either play or sit out under contract for no money. Players will play under those conditions just like many decided during the strike.The strike and replacement players happened in 1987. The union failed completely so they decided to decertify. After decertification, games continued under the owners' rules and Reggie White sued. Reggie won and that forced the NFL to agree to free agency in exchange for a salary cap (and floor). If the union decertifies this time, I think the same scenario plays out. The players play under the NFL's rules and individuals will challenge them in court. They likely win in a couple of years and force the NFL to come back to the table and negotiate.
Click to expand...
Toads, Mello is correct here.Last time, decertification did not cause the strike, the failed strike caused decertification. Without a union, the players cannot collectively do anything, especially strike. If some players call for a boycott of their services to NFL teams, the majority of players will scoff and go back to work because they need the paycheck. That's what the Union remembers from the 80s, two failed strikes because the players couldn't hold out as long as the owners. That's what the owners remember too, which is why they are pushing for the lockout. They know the players crumble.

The closest legal precedent is the NHL lockout of 2004. Players salaries were 70% of league revenue pre-strike, and the owners couldn't survive under those conditions. The NHL Players Association did not decertify, and instead continued to negotiate, eventually agreeing to a new set of salary rules very close to what the owners were initially demanding. It took 310 days of no NHL hockey.

An attempt at a lockout with decertification has no precedent. This is all new territory.

As to the "sham" decertification, the NFLPA only recertified so fast last time because it was essential to the settlement of the antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. So long as the NFLPA can keep the dispute in front of Judge Doty, who was the presiding judge over that lawsuit, I think they'll be ok on this issue. The NFL would be arguing to Judge Doty that he was wrong twenty years ago. Good luck with that. Which is why the NFL so desperately will try anything to remove Doty from the future proceedings.

 
The rookies need someone watching their interest especially with the agents barking so much the last week or two.

 
'GroveDiesel said:
I don't think that they'll win, but I'm not so sure that the NFL is wrong about the decertification being a sham. Is De Smith really just going to put himself out of a job and have nothing to do with the players at this point? Or is it likely that the players "decertify" but essentially keep the NFLPA in place? And IMO, there are a lot of negative consequences for the players too that they're not really thinking through. A lot of the licensing for merchandise is done with an agreemen through the NFLPA. That all goes away. So what happens to jersey sales, the Madden franchise, etc.?
Click to expand...
He wont be out of a job. The union will simply become a trade association where players pay their dues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Toads said:
'Orange Crush said:
'Scruff Mcgruff said:
If the union goes through with decertification, the N.F.L.'s labor dispute could end up winding its way through the courts, where most of the players' gains — including free agency — have come. It is unclear if games would be played during that process.

http://www.nytimes.c...ball/27nfl.html

Orange Crush, your analysis made me feel more comfortable about games being played through this court process...can you explain why or why not they would be? if the union does go through with decertifying
Click to expand...
The common thinking on the matter is that the NFL would be unable to commence a lockout, as that is a strategy strictly used in labor negotiations. Decertification means that there is no labor union to negotiate with, and thus there can be no lockout. If the NFL owners still initiated a lockout, that would be an agreement among the 32 teams to engage in collective behavior and that itself would be an antitrust violation. Individual players would challenge that in court and get an injunction against the NFL to end the lockout and let them back to work. However, there's a theory, which has never been tested in court, that suggests that a lockout could still be commenced because instead of the lockout being deemed as collective action within a market, the lockout is a removal of the market itself. This theory relies on the finding of the NFL as a monopoly in previous court cases. Collective action within a market = antitrust violation. Collective action to remove the market = no antitrust violation. Will that work? Don't know. It's never been tried before. But, assuming decertification goes through, it's about to be.

First, though, the NFL is going to challenge the decertification as a sham. That's what their earlier complaint filed with the NRLB aimed at. We'll see if that works first, in an attempt to keep the union active. If it doesn't, then they'll try a lockout, which players will immediately challenge in court (probably in front of Judge Doty, which scares the crap out of the NFL). If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
In 1989, the Union decertified and that led to replacement games, scab players crossing picket lines, and a messy settlement.What legal precidents have been placed that make a similar scenario unworkable? What's changed in labor law, since then, to make this settlement process different?

At this point, a "Work Stoppage" (the operative term) seems to be a 100 percent certainty. Having the Owner's "negoiate amongst themselves to inable a process that leads to a full set of games" is laugh-able. The players ain't going to work under those circumstances, they'll just deny their services and continue with the work stoppage.

"A new set of rules" that with stands the light of day of an anti-trust court challenge? That's a concept that's yet to be developed and I don't see the Owner's being able to float that boat. There's no "brand new" solution out there that has not been examined, thoroughly, in the precidents of previous labor law. True or false? If there's light at the end of that statement, lay it on me.

We're headed to zero salary time for the Commish and a major mess for the game we follow. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I disagree with the bolded. In 1989 the players went on strike. Part of the players leverage came from the lost television revenue the owners would incur from not having games on TV. The owners brought in the non union scabs to have a product to put on TV, so as not to lose that revenue. Once this happened players started crossing the line and a deal was struck within a month.

We are not talking about a strike here, rather a lockout. The owners are getting TV revenue this time games or no games. The players are not have not and will not strike. In 1989 the players thought they had leverege and witheld thier services to get a better deal. In 2011 its the owners looking for a better deal, and make no mistake they are much better equipped to withstain a stoppage. The owners have been preparing for a lockout sine the last TV contracts. They didn't get to be billionairs by being stupid. There will be give backs in the new CBA everyone knows that. The sooner D Smith stops trying to build his image and starts negociating those give backs the sooner we will have football.

 
'markb said:
'GroveDiesel said:
I don't think that they'll win, but I'm not so sure that the NFL is wrong about the decertification being a sham. Is De Smith really just going to put himself out of a job and have nothing to do with the players at this point? Or is it likely that the players "decertify" but essentially keep the NFLPA in place? And IMO, there are a lot of negative consequences for the players too that they're not really thinking through. A lot of the licensing for merchandise is done with an agreemen through the NFLPA. That all goes away. So what happens to jersey sales, the Madden franchise, etc.?
Click to expand...
He wont be out of a job. The union will simply become a trade association where players pay their dues.
Click to expand...
Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.
 
'GroveDiesel said:
Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.
Click to expand...
It seems very clear that the existence of a union in the NFL, NBA and NHL clearly benefits the owners more than it does the union members. The players are better off under anti-trust law than they are in collective bargaining. Under anti-trust law there won't be a salary cap, there won't be a draft, there won't be a franchise tag or any other restrictions on players not under contract. How long will/can the courts force the players to remain unionized?
 
'Insomniac said:
'GroveDiesel said:
Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.
Click to expand...
It seems very clear that the existence of a union in the NFL, NBA and NHL clearly benefits the owners more than it does the union members. The players are better off under anti-trust law than they are in collective bargaining. Under anti-trust law there won't be a salary cap, there won't be a draft, there won't be a franchise tag or any other restrictions on players not under contract. How long will/can the courts force the players to remain unionized?
Click to expand...
so many people here just talking out of thier ###. I'm must have missed the court ruling forcing the players to unionize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Insomniac said:
'GroveDiesel said:
Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.
Click to expand...
It seems very clear that the existence of a union in the NFL, NBA and NHL clearly benefits the owners more than it does the union members. The players are better off under anti-trust law than they are in collective bargaining. Under anti-trust law there won't be a salary cap, there won't be a draft, there won't be a franchise tag or any other restrictions on players not under contract. How long will/can the courts force the players to remain unionized?
Click to expand...
I disagree, because there would also be an inferior product with less competitive balance. The domination of the market by the NFL would lead to special concessions given to small rival leagues (see UFL), and a gradual loss of fan support.Baseball didn't get where it did JUST because of a strike.
 
If the union decertifies and the courts rule that the owners can no longer act as one entity, what does that do to all of the television contracts that were negotiated as one entity? Does that mean that the NFL will no longer be able to negotiate national tv contracts and that each team will have to reach separate agreements with whatever networks they can? Something like that WOULD be the total destruction of the league as we know it.

 
'Yellow Line is Unoffcial said:
'Insomniac said:
'GroveDiesel said:
Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.
Click to expand...
It seems very clear that the existence of a union in the NFL, NBA and NHL clearly benefits the owners more than it does the union members. The players are better off under anti-trust law than they are in collective bargaining. Under anti-trust law there won't be a salary cap, there won't be a draft, there won't be a franchise tag or any other restrictions on players not under contract. How long will/can the courts force the players to remain unionized?
Click to expand...
so many people here just talking out of thier ###. I'm must have missed the court ruling forcing the players to unionize.
Click to expand...
Both sides benefit from there being a players union. The NFL would pretty much cease to exist if the players challenged everything under antitrust law. 20 years ago, Judge Doty told the owners this, that they really didn't want him to be the final word on what the owners could and could not do, and the owners quickly settled with the players. The players know this as well. They view themselves as partners with the owners to make the NFL the best sports league out there. Even if they decertify and sue under antitrust, those are all still just ammunition to get the best leverage in what will eventually be another CBA.
 
'GroveDiesel said:
If the union decertifies and the courts rule that the owners can no longer act as one entity, what does that do to all of the television contracts that were negotiated as one entity? Does that mean that the NFL will no longer be able to negotiate national tv contracts and that each team will have to reach separate agreements with whatever networks they can? Something like that WOULD be the total destruction of the league as we know it.
Click to expand...
The NFL has an antitrust exemption given it by Congress to negotiate TV contracts as a single entity. The courts can't touch that.
 
'WVU Alum said:
'Clarence the barber said:
Any chance we could see mass exodus of NFL stars going to UFL teams? I'd love to see that happen.
Click to expand...
when did the UFL get the finances to sign individual players for more than their entire current team salary?
Click to expand...
If the UFL gets a television deal so that the networks will have football to broadcast while the NFL is on lockout, then there's the money to sign NFL-caliber players.The NFL's labor strife is the reason Mark Cuban and the other UFL owners decided to bring the UFL back for another year. They're betting on the NFL shooting itself in the foot, here, and for them to capitalize.

 
'Orange Crush said:
'Yellow Line is Unoffcial said:
'Insomniac said:
'GroveDiesel said:
Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.
Click to expand...
It seems very clear that the existence of a union in the NFL, NBA and NHL clearly benefits the owners more than it does the union members. The players are better off under anti-trust law than they are in collective bargaining. Under anti-trust law there won't be a salary cap, there won't be a draft, there won't be a franchise tag or any other restrictions on players not under contract. How long will/can the courts force the players to remain unionized?
Click to expand...
so many people here just talking out of thier ###. I'm must have missed the court ruling forcing the players to unionize.
Click to expand...
Both sides benefit from there being a players union. The NFL would pretty much cease to exist if the players challenged everything under antitrust law. 20 years ago, Judge Doty told the owners this, that they really didn't want him to be the final word on what the owners could and could not do, and the owners quickly settled with the players. The players know this as well. They view themselves as partners with the owners to make the NFL the best sports league out there. Even if they decertify and sue under antitrust, those are all still just ammunition to get the best leverage in what will eventually be another CBA.
Click to expand...
:popcorn:
 
If the NFLPA union decertifies, could the NFL actively seek a new union to partner with? Basically just start over with 2nd tier players and wait until the current players lose enough money until they decide to join the new union?

 
'Steel Dillo said:
If the NFLPA union decertifies, could the NFL actively seek a new union to partner with? Basically just start over with 2nd tier players and wait until the current players lose enough money until they decide to join the new union?
Click to expand...
Not really. The owners cannot entice or incentivize a subset of employees to unionize. However, there's nothing stopping a group of players from forming their own union so long as their interests differ from the rest of the players. So, starting quarterbacks could form their own union, arguing that their compensation is markedly different from other players. Or starting players could unionize, separating them from the bench warmers. That's not a particular winning strategy, though, and is only likely to happen under a scenario like if 6-9 months from now when games are being cancelled, a group of players want to give in and play, but De Smith and the rest of the "players association" leadership is blocking that.
 
'Idiot Boxer said:
'Orange Crush said:
'Idiot Boxer said:
This is why the ruling in American Needle was wrong.
Click to expand...
A different ruling in American Needle wouldn't have helped the owners here.
Click to expand...
Explain it to me like I'm Chase.
Click to expand...
In American Needle, the NFL was arguing that the antitrust laws shouldn't apply to them in the market of clothing merchandise because the 32 teams didn't compete against each other in that market, that they all fell under an NFL brand, and were competing against other sports leagues and clothing enterprises in that market -- that antitrust laws are market specific, and that a professional sports league should be regarded as a single entity in at least some aspects of its operations, depending on the market within which the league is competing. Whereas, in a market for football-playing talent, the NFL does not operate as a single entity and instead as 32 teams whoo compete against each other and thus would be subject to antitrust law. If they had won American Needle, the NFL would still be subject to antitrust law in dealing with players. SCOTUS didn't even buy that nuanced argument, though.
 
'Orange Crush said:
'Idiot Boxer said:
'Orange Crush said:
'Idiot Boxer said:
This is why the ruling in American Needle was wrong.
Click to expand...
A different ruling in American Needle wouldn't have helped the owners here.
Click to expand...
Explain it to me like I'm Chase.
Click to expand...
In American Needle, the NFL was arguing that the antitrust laws shouldn't apply to them in the market of clothing merchandise because the 32 teams didn't compete against each other in that market, that they all fell under an NFL brand, and were competing against other sports leagues and clothing enterprises in that market -- that antitrust laws are market specific, and that a professional sports league should be regarded as a single entity in at least some aspects of its operations, depending on the market within which the league is competing. Whereas, in a market for football-playing talent, the NFL does not operate as a single entity and instead as 32 teams whoo compete against each other and thus would be subject to antitrust law. If they had won American Needle, the NFL would still be subject to antitrust law in dealing with players. SCOTUS didn't even buy that nuanced argument, though.
Click to expand...
Of course, I'm sure the NFL would have tried to then argue that they acted as a single entity in regards to labor and were exempt from anti-trust, if they had gotten a ruling in their favor in American Needle. I just think they would have lost that challenge, even so. I also believe that the NFL could get away with a lot of collaborative behavior in the labor market and still withstand an antitrust challenge under the Rule of Reason, precisely because of the unique nature of sports leagues. But that's quite a large gamble for the league to take.
 
'Orange Crush said:
If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
So what might the new set of rules look like? I'll take a stab and you can shoot holes in them.I assume no draft. I guess they can't keep this and argue a draft stimulates competition.No salary cap or salary floor.They could still share TV revenue, which would help balance the talent.Full unrestricted FA once the initial contract expires. Of course, without a draft, this would mean unrestricted FA from the beginning.Anything else major I'm missing? It seems like the owners could live with this. No draft is the worst part.
 
'Hoosier16 said:
'Orange Crush said:
If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
So what might the new set of rules look like? I'll take a stab and you can shoot holes in them.I assume no draft. I guess they can't keep this and argue a draft stimulates competition.No salary cap or salary floor.They could still share TV revenue, which would help balance the talent.Full unrestricted FA once the initial contract expires. Of course, without a draft, this would mean unrestricted FA from the beginning.Anything else major I'm missing? It seems like the owners could live with this. No draft is the worst part.
Click to expand...
I doubt that there isnt an NFL draft. Pro leagues need drafts
 
'bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
'Hoosier16 said:
'Orange Crush said:
If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
So what might the new set of rules look like? I'll take a stab and you can shoot holes in them.I assume no draft. I guess they can't keep this and argue a draft stimulates competition.No salary cap or salary floor.They could still share TV revenue, which would help balance the talent.Full unrestricted FA once the initial contract expires. Of course, without a draft, this would mean unrestricted FA from the beginning.Anything else major I'm missing? It seems like the owners could live with this. No draft is the worst part.
Click to expand...
I doubt that there isnt an NFL draft. Pro leagues need drafts
Click to expand...
That seems like an easy challenge for antitrust litigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Hoosier16 said:
'Orange Crush said:
If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
So what might the new set of rules look like? I'll take a stab and you can shoot holes in them.I assume no draft. I guess they can't keep this and argue a draft stimulates competition.No salary cap or salary floor.They could still share TV revenue, which would help balance the talent.Full unrestricted FA once the initial contract expires. Of course, without a draft, this would mean unrestricted FA from the beginning.Anything else major I'm missing? It seems like the owners could live with this. No draft is the worst part.
Click to expand...
Hello baseball.
 
'Hoosier16 said:
So what might the new set of rules look like? I'll take a stab and you can shoot holes in them.I assume no draft. I guess they can't keep this and argue a draft stimulates competition.No salary cap or salary floor.They could still share TV revenue, which would help balance the talent.Full unrestricted FA once the initial contract expires. Of course, without a draft, this would mean unrestricted FA from the beginning.Anything else major I'm missing? It seems like the owners could live with this. No draft is the worst part.
Click to expand...
This is where the split between the different groups of owners kicks in and makes it interesting. If I was a small (or medium) market owner, I'd want a draft and a salary cap, but no salary floor. I'd want as much sharing of revenues as I could. I'd also want more restrictive free agency, so I could keep my players longer without having to worry about the salary a big-market team would offer. I'll be real interested in seeing what kind of rules the owners impose if they find themselves in that position.
 
'Hoosier16 said:
'Orange Crush said:
If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
So what might the new set of rules look like? I'll take a stab and you can shoot holes in them.I assume no draft. I guess they can't keep this and argue a draft stimulates competition.

No salary cap or salary floor.

They could still share TV revenue, which would help balance the talent.

Full unrestricted FA once the initial contract expires. Of course, without a draft, this would mean unrestricted FA from the beginning.

Anything else major I'm missing? It seems like the owners could live with this. No draft is the worst part.
Click to expand...
I think that combination of rules would certainly survive an antitrust challenge. Unfortunately, those rules would divide the league into haves and have nots, and would ruin the league for many of us. I think the owners may be able to get away with, and might actually try to get away with, a bit more than that. The courts will allow the owners to collaborate in some ways under antitrust law, so long as they make their businesses "more competitive" (not more competitive on the playing field, but economically, i.e. efficiency gains and the like) if it outweighs the anti-competitive effects from said collaboration.In law school, I took two classes that looked at applying antitrust law to sports. The two professors were quite at odds over this issue. One hit again and again that this has nothing to do with the competition on the actual playing field, and instead one must focus solely on revenue of the legal entities and the resultant economic effects on the players. The other said that the evenness of competition on the playing field certainly has economic effects, and thus is a factor in the analysis. Based on the last 30 years of change in the sports industry, I think a compelling argument can now be made that the economic growth of the NFL, as compared to other sports leagues, is directly related to their having the greatest on-field parity. Therefore, reasonable rules to make the teams have an even chance of winning games will withstand antitrust scrutiny.

If that argument is upheld, some advantages can be given to teams who performed worse the year before. One such advantage would be a distribution of rookie talent where the worst teams select first, i.e. the current format of the rookie draft. Also, some form of revenue sharing above and beyond the amounts brought in under the broadcast contracts. A hard salary cap might be a step too far, as the anticompetitive effects against players would probably trump the procompetitive effects there. But a soft cap might survive a challenge. Certainly a salary floor would (though it would have to be low enough that at least 24 owners bought into it).

However, this is all an enormous risk. Have I mentioned in this thread how antitrust violations carry with it a penalty of treble damages? So if a court disagrees with the NFL's analysis, there will be one whopper of a check the owners will have to write.

 
'Orange Crush said:
'Hoosier16 said:
'Orange Crush said:
If that doesn't work, then the NFL owners have to negotiate amongst themselves and institute a new set of rules that a) they can live with, and b) will hopefully withstand antitrust challenge. That will be very difficult, and may take a few months to sort out. But under that scenario, there will be a full set of games played in 2011.
Click to expand...
So what might the new set of rules look like? I'll take a stab and you can shoot holes in them.I assume no draft. I guess they can't keep this and argue a draft stimulates competition.

No salary cap or salary floor.

They could still share TV revenue, which would help balance the talent.

Full unrestricted FA once the initial contract expires. Of course, without a draft, this would mean unrestricted FA from the beginning.

Anything else major I'm missing? It seems like the owners could live with this. No draft is the worst part.
Click to expand...
I think that combination of rules would certainly survive an antitrust challenge. Unfortunately, those rules would divide the league into haves and have nots, and would ruin the league for many of us. I think the owners may be able to get away with, and might actually try to get away with, a bit more than that. The courts will allow the owners to collaborate in some ways under antitrust law, so long as they make their businesses "more competitive" (not more competitive on the playing field, but economically, i.e. efficiency gains and the like) if it outweighs the anti-competitive effects from said collaboration.In law school, I took two classes that looked at applying antitrust law to sports. The two professors were quite at odds over this issue. One hit again and again that this has nothing to do with the competition on the actual playing field, and instead one must focus solely on revenue of the legal entities and the resultant economic effects on the players. The other said that the evenness of competition on the playing field certainly has economic effects, and thus is a factor in the analysis. Based on the last 30 years of change in the sports industry, I think a compelling argument can now be made that the economic growth of the NFL, as compared to other sports leagues, is directly related to their having the greatest on-field parity. Therefore, reasonable rules to make the teams have an even chance of winning games will withstand antitrust scrutiny.

If that argument is upheld, some advantages can be given to teams who performed worse the year before. One such advantage would be a distribution of rookie talent where the worst teams select first, i.e. the current format of the rookie draft. Also, some form of revenue sharing above and beyond the amounts brought in under the broadcast contracts. A hard salary cap might be a step too far, as the anticompetitive effects against players would probably trump the procompetitive effects there. But a soft cap might survive a challenge. Certainly a salary floor would (though it would have to be low enough that at least 24 owners bought into it).

However, this is all an enormous risk. Have I mentioned in this thread how antitrust violations carry with it a penalty of treble damages? So if a court disagrees with the NFL's analysis, there will be one whopper of a check the owners will have to write.
Click to expand...
From what you described, it seems like the argument that parity leads to more revenue would be an easy argument to make. If a draft would withstand a challenge, I can't see this as being a bad thing for the owners. If they can also share more revenue and institute any kind of cap, then it wouldn't be much different than it is now, at least from a fan's perspective.With the rules above, it seems like the only place where the damages could be enormous would be from losing on the issue of a draft. But, it seems like it would be hard to prove damages. It seems easier to show any highly drafted rookie is probably currently overpaid. The comparison would have to made against previous unrestricted FAs and it could probably be shown the rookies are more than fairly paid for not having any experience. I can't imagine a lower drafted rookie filing the suit. He's just happy to be working.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
“Untouchable” players
2 3
Replies
119
Views
2K
darksideofoz
darksideofoz
Hot Sauce Guy
  • Locked
Value Swings if Tush Push is Banned
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
BobbyLayne
NFL owners approve rule change allowing private equity investment, with reported $12 billion already committed
Replies
26
Views
1K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top