CalBear
Footballguy
It seems increasingly obvious to me that any evidence that the players are legally correct will result in you asserting that the laws are wrong.
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!
Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Jason Wood
Zoo York
I'm not trying to pick on you CalBear and renesauz, who I think are awesome as both contributors to the Pool and as league competitors. But since your response is the most recent example...why must these kinds of discussions always be about "right" and "wrong" and making those who disagree your adversary? I really don't get this. We all have our own views on how this will play out, how it SHOULD play out, and whether things are going the way we hoped they would. But none of us know anything beyond that, it's personal conjecture. Truth be told, everyone in here (and I'm including myself) have weak opinions strongly held on this matter. Most of us aren't legal experts at all, and even the lawyers in here would readily admit that they aren't equipped to make a strong determination in this situation because of the complexities of antitrust and the gray area with which professional leagues have always operated.We ALL want football back.We ALL want football to come back in a form that allows it to thrive.We ALL hate the idea of there not being football.But beyond that? It's hard to see the back and forth as though each side is dug in. How can any of us be dug in here? It's why I was asserting after all the crowing about the players "having their way with the owners" that this was far from over. And right now it appears the owners have a bit of momentum back. But the only logical thing I've seen said, outside of the rhetoric, by any of the power players in this case, is when Roger Goodell said that this WILL NOT BE SETTLED IN THE COURTS. If our goal, as fans, is to want football back. And back soon in a form that works for years to come. Then none of us should have a rooting interest in legal outcomes for one side or the other. Our only rooting interest should be in whatever legal path leads to the fastest resolution to the dispute, which in essence is getting them all back to the table with real interest in negotiating a new CBA.
Seems like the players and NFLPA can't win in this situation. If they argue that the decertification is legitimate and they file lawsuits to assert their rights under antitrust laws, then they are considered to be out to ruin the league as we know it. When they acknowledge that the decertification is a tactic to gain leverage in negotiating a new CBA, then their decertification is a sham that should not be allowed and will allow the owners to lock them out unless they agree to the demands from the owners.
I'm
I'm
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the players are legally correct and that the laws are wrong. See post 1250.
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
I disagree about not having a rooting interest. I want this solved quickly and I don't care much who gets screwed over in the next CBA. I just want my football fix back. The fight between the owners and the players is like Pacquiao vs Mosley last Saturday Night. Mosley (players) just trifling through the fight knowing that they have no shot in hell of winning, just trying not to get knocked out. Pacquiao (owners) loading up the KO punch, but can’t get it in. Makes for a boring and predictable fight. That’s not un-like the current stalemate between the players and owners.
I just want this lock-out to end. I am going to choose whichever party I think is the strongest and hope they can bust the other side. Currently, I side with the owners out of convenience. If the players had leverage, I’d side with them. And I am bored with all this legal mumbo-jumbo.
I just want my damn football back!
CalBear
Footballguy
Thank you for your contribution, Justice Scalia. Are you a Skins fan?
CalBear
Footballguy
The thing that is feeding those dug-in positions is people's differing views of moral rights. But the dispute isn't symmetrical. On the one side there is a system of laws which has been developed and modified over hundreds of years with the goal of balancing the rights of employers and employees; on the other side we have personal opinions of guys on a football message board. So you have a great post by Maurile attempting to analyze the legal issues and generally coming down on the side of the players, and then you have other guys saying, "I don't like that outcome because it doesn't fit my personal moral code." There are always areas of the law where reasonable people can disagree. But the question of whether NFL players should have rights as employees, including the right to decide to bargain collectively or individually, is not an area where reasonable disagreement exists.
Yes it is such an area.EDIT: Well, yes, they should be able to decide whether to bargain collectively or individually, but the choice to do so individually should not simultaneously ruin the league. For that there needs to be an antitrust exemption.
Last edited by a moderator:
In the context of trying to gain the upper hand in negotiations, I think pretty much anything that's allowed is reasonable.That, of course, raises the question of whether it's reasonable to allow decertifying primarily for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in negotiations. I think it is, because I think the alternative is worse. The alternative includes trying to figure out what a thousand players subjectively intended. If I were a judge, I wouldn't want to get into that. I'd ignore subjective intent and use objective criteria: did the players act (as opposed to think) in a way that's inconsistent with a genuine, honest-to-goodness, non-shammy decertification?
(The players don't automatically win using that test, by the way. I think decertifying before the CBA even expires is an objective act that might be a little bit shammy.)
It's an open question, but that's possible. I think it would be a season at the most, though — not two. The idea behind the exemption is to leave things as they are for a while after the last CBA has expired, during negotiations for the next one. After decertification, however, I think it's time to move things along, because we're no longer at a point "during negotiations for the next one."
sweetness34
Footballguy
CalBear - I always respect your opinion (you have a wealth of knowledge about auctions, etc…), but I disagree with your characterization here (not your opinion necessarily, just the portrayal.) Regardless of which "side" one is on (I think Wood was generally saying the same thing above...), MT (and others) have made eloquent "arguments" that generally side with the players, while Idiot Boxer (and others) have made intelligent "arguments" that side for the owners. To paint one whole side as the "righteous" and the other as a bunch of "opinions on a message board" - seems to be a conclusion dripping with the moral bias you initially were arguing against. Basically – for an individual to say one side is all moral bias and the other is/has none (which, in my opinion, is the assertion) is a little disingenuous. To be clear, I have great respect for CalBear - my intent is meant more as a general commentary on the conversation.
Engaging in activity inconsistent with disclaiming the union. For example — organized picketing.
Perhaps a minor point, but a CBA will generally contain a provision barring strikes or lockouts. For a strike or lockout to occur, the CBA must first expire.
Right, I meant at expiration with the expiring CBA serving as the starting point of negotiations.
But wasn't decertification before the CBA expired basically required if the NFLPA wanted to decertify at all? I thought the previous CBA prohibited decertification for 6 months after the CBA expired if decertification wasn't done before the expiration? That is one issue that seems pretty disingenuous about the owners' argument to the court since they basically wrote that into the last CBA.
CalBear
Footballguy
Consider these two statements:"The question of whether NFL players should have rights as employees, including the right to decide to bargain collectively or individually, is not an area where reasonable disagreement exists."
"I think the players are legally correct and that the laws are wrong."
They are on opposite sides of the issue, but they are not equally valid. The first is a position based on existing law and practice. The second is a position based on personal opinion. That's not to say that all the arguments on the players' side are based on existing law and practice; certainly there are opinions and moral judgements on that side as well. But the idea that the owners "should" have more control over the situation, or that the players "shouldn't" be able to decertify as a negotiating tactic, are opinions based on value judgements. They're not based on anything in law.
Now, I have asserted that the owners "shouldn't" be able to fund vanity stadium projects with money taken away from player salaries unless the players agree to it; I will freely acknowledge that that position is a personal opinion based on a value judgement, and there is potential for reasonable disagreement on the point. There are also reasonable questions about whether the tactics the players are employing are the most likely path to the outcome that they desire. But on the question of whether they have the legal right to do what they're doing, there's not a whole lot of room for reasonable disagreement. Nor does it seem reasonable to assert that NFL players should have different legal rights than other employees because the NFL owners want to make more money than they're currently making.
Yes, if they hadn't decertified before the CBA expired, they would have had to wait six months. So it's understandable why the players did it. On the other hand, waiting at least six months is the norm. Once a CBA expires, the parties typically bargain for a good while before declaring that an impasse has been reached. It's understandable why the players rushed through the negotiating process and into court so quickly in this case; but it is rather unusual.
scoobygang
Footballguy
Although I think MT's analysis is generally very good, I think he misses a fairly key point when he speaks about the need for reciprocity. If the NFL's reading of the Norris-Laguardia Act is correct, then even the members of a decertified union could potentially strike, or at least, if they were to strike, then a District Court would not have the jurisdicition to enjoin their strike). Under the NFL's theory, I doesn't matter if the NFLPA were still a union. A strike arising out of a labor dispute cannot be enjoined under the terms of the Norris-Laguardia Act. And because employers have reciprocal rights, neither can a lockout.
Understand that there is a difference between the court's power to enjoin a strike or a lockout (which is restrained by the Norris-Laguardia Act) and that same court's power to award damages (treble damages!) under the Sherman Act. A strike or a lockout may nevertheless be an antitrust violation (depending on how the Court interprets that language from Brown), but that doesn't automatically entitle the complaining party to injunctive relief when we have federal law limiting the courts ability to order such relief. The Norris-Laguardia Act was passed in the 1930's because the federal courts were increasingly being used to break strikes. Congress didn't want that to happen anymore. So they created a scheme that restrained the courts' jurisdiction (while mainataining those courts' jurisdiction to award damages after the fact). I think that's a sensible and reasonable result.
Understand that there is a difference between the court's power to enjoin a strike or a lockout (which is restrained by the Norris-Laguardia Act) and that same court's power to award damages (treble damages!) under the Sherman Act. A strike or a lockout may nevertheless be an antitrust violation (depending on how the Court interprets that language from Brown), but that doesn't automatically entitle the complaining party to injunctive relief when we have federal law limiting the courts ability to order such relief. The Norris-Laguardia Act was passed in the 1930's because the federal courts were increasingly being used to break strikes. Congress didn't want that to happen anymore. So they created a scheme that restrained the courts' jurisdiction (while mainataining those courts' jurisdiction to award damages after the fact). I think that's a sensible and reasonable result.
Expressing an opinion that the law is wrong and giving reasons for that opinion is "not valid" and "not based on anything in law"? What are we allowed to talk about on this topic?
sweetness34
Footballguy
No problem with any of that (though I may not agree with everything). I dont recall mentioning anything about legal rights. Thats why I like MTs thoughts he is always clear about what can be done legally, but hes careful to differentiate that from his opinion/bias - even if one often supports the other.Its cool.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
I'm not telling you what to talk about, but I am telling you that if you're going to assert that hundreds of years of legal precedent carefully constructed to balance the interests of employers and employees is "wrong", you're going to have to bring some strong arguments, or you'll end up sounding foolish.
Because you me and everyone else knows Forrest Gump made a profit - but the entertainment industry has a form of accounting where they can make nearly any movie unprofitable on the books. It's why if you are talent you NEVER take net profit - which you almost never see a dime of - and you always get points based on gross profits.To some extent what the example means is the owners can say they are broke, but until someone sees what they mean and HOW they are figuring it out, there's no proof.
I talked about it a little here a about a month ago. The two situations (sports are entertainment by and large) are, in my opinion, pretty similar. And given some of the shenanigans the owners have pulled, I think the players are pretty leery of just taking their word for it. As am I.
I appreciate your point about the difference between the jurisdiction to provide injunctive relief, on the one hand, and the jurisdiction to award damages after the fact, on the other. That's a good point.But when it comes to striking after the union is disclaimed, as a practical matter, how would that happen? How would a strike be organized when it's every man for himself? (And if a strike did occur, wouldn't that pretty much automatically render the decertification a sham? A strike is objectively inconsistent with a disclaimer, isn't it?)
So.....right and wrong are defined by LEGAL?Sorry...my moral compass is a bit more advanced than that. Laws are made to fit moral standards, not the other way around. So, YES, if the players are legally right in what they're doing, than I think the laws in this case are bogus and need changed....just like EVERY law that ever gets changed when it fails to meet the common good, becomes outdated, or is later determined to be immoral. (Slavery and indentured servitude were once legal...were they moral?)These laws are not, IMHO, serving the purpose for which they were intended.
Last edited by a moderator:
My arguments are in post 1250. Sports Leagues are different from other industries. Congress recognized this and granted MLB an exemption.The NHL has already asked to chime in on this case. I hope the NBA and MLB do too. Maybe this will ultimately result in a comprehensive set of rules that make sense for sports leagues.
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate this post. It is the grayness of the law which makes me call it inadequate. I don't blame the players (or the people who support them) one bit for using those laws to their maximum advantage. Although I fell strongly that pro sports need and deserve a more complete and well-defined trust exemption, it isn't personal. IN the end, you're correct in that what we all want is competitive football!
True, but every industry is different from the rest. They are all special snowflakes.
It wasn't Congress. It was Justice Holmes. He held that Major League Baseball didn't qualify as "interstate commerce," which is kind of awesome in its own way . . . but clearly wrong under today's interpretation of the Commerce Clause.(Federal antitrust laws apply only to interstate commerce. Under today's interpretation, growing your own plants that were never bought or sold, and never crossed state lines, qualifies as interstate commerce.)
Last edited by a moderator:
This (bolded) is a bad assumption. Nobody is trying to say the players don't have or shouldn't have rights, nor am I (nor anyone else) implying that they shouldn't have collective bargaining power. What we are arguing about (I think) is where such power should end. We're arguing (I thought) about whether pro sports leagues should operate under the EXACT SAME (not similar...but SAME) trust laws that other businesses do. Reasonable disagreement can in fact exist over collective vs. individual bargaining because of the unique and temporary nature of the pro sports career.
scoobygang
Footballguy
EDIT: Because this is probably going beyond what I should talk about.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
From Berkshire Hathaway's annual report this year (always a great read):
Lots of other finance geek stuff in there about the futility of Black-Scholes options valuations.http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2010ltr.pdf
Sports Leagues are different in obvious ways. Thanks for the clarification that the Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to MLB in a unanimous decision that was subsequently reaffirmed in two other cases. Seems you're trying to downplay it (have to do research when responding to you).
scoobygang
Footballguy
I fail to see how that's relevant as the Supreme Court has also ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act DOES apply to the NFL, a holding that was reaffirmed as recently as last year.EDIT: Not to mention that Federal Baseball, Toolsby,and Flood are almost certainly no longer good law in the wake of the Curt Flood Act.Thanks for the clarification that the Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to MLB in a unanimous decision that was subsequently reaffirmed in two other cases. Seems you're trying to downplay it (have to do research when responding to you).
Last edited by a moderator:
First, there aren't "hundreds of years of legal precedent". The oldest functioning applicable laws are barely 100 years old. Second, NONE of those laws was formed as a response to issues arising in pro sports leagues. The fundamental and crucial argument I (and some others) have is that these laws were NEVER intended to cover pro sports, and that the basic nature of pro sports leagues and it's LABOR is so fundamentally differant from the businesses those laws were initially intended to target, that a new set of laws/rules is warranted.Whether those laws currently apply is a legal question better answered by the lawyers in here. Whether they SHOULD apply is at it's heart a moral question, not a legal question.Now....reasonable people can quite easily come down on opposite sides of that fence (the moral question) without being "bad". Not related to your post:While decertification should not be allowed as a negotiating tool, I don't believe that the power to "lockout" should be readily and easily available either...and should not be so easily used as a negotiating tool.I may be on the side of the owners in general, but I am very sympathetic to many of the players positions.
What I get from this is that the trust laws are wacked out.I wouldn't take their word for it either. That's the great thing about the strike/lockout mechanism. You don't have to take anyone's word for anything. You don't have to get hung up on the business opening its books. You just go to the strike/lockout. If the owners really are making money hand over fist with the expired CBA then they will not hold out long.
CalBear
Footballguy
Our system of laws is based on English Common Law, which dates back to the Magna Carta.By the way, the Magna Carta was formed by a group of barons asserting their rights against the king; millionaires arguing with billionaires, in a 13th century way.
Yes, you have asserted that. There's no basis in law or precedent for your assertion. You're expressing an opinion based on the outcome of applying labor law to the NFL; you don't like the outcome. That's fine, you don't have to like it. But there is a well-established legal way to avoid the individual application of labor law; negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with a union, so employees agree to give up some of their rights in exchange for an employment contract. The idea that NFL players "should" not have the rights of other employees just because of the nature of their business makes no sense at all.
It wasn't reaffirmed because it was correct. It was reaffirmed based on stare decisis. The court basically said, "Yeah, Justice Holmes got that one wrong. But we're just going to let it ride, and if Congress wants to fix it, it can."
So....labor unions and the illegality of monopolies was addressed in the Magna Carta? Really?
Wadsworth
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure he understood the parallel, just didn't want to steer the discussion that direction.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Up until the formation of Baron's Local 131, Baron's were required to work on the Sabbath and were unable to enjoy watching the Royal Jousting Tournaments.So....labor unions and the illegality of monopolies was addressed in the Magna Carta? Really?
Whether or not they are optimal, they are certainly adequate . . . because we do in fact have healthy sports leagues for our society to enjoy.
I do agree with the sentiment that sports leagues are different from other industries when it comes to whether antitrust laws should be applied to them. In fact, I think the case for applying antitrust laws to sports leagues is stronger than it is for most other industries.On the whole, I think that the best antidote to anticompetitive collusion is a business environment that fosters free competition. If five gas stations are going to fix their prices at $5 a gallon and they invite me to join them, why wouldn't I tell them to go ahead without me and then set my own price at $4.89 a gallon? (And if I don't do it, somebody else will — maybe a new start-up.) Agreements in restraint of trade, in general, tend to be difficult to enforce, and therefore tend to have rather limited negative effects. Participants will always be tempted to cheat in order to gain market share.
In sports leagues, things are a bit different. If the 31 other NFL teams are going to fix salaries at $100 million per team and they invite me to join them . . . what can I do? If I go over the cap, the other 31 teams won't play with me and I'll be out of business. Shell can't put Exxon out of business for cutting prices, but the rest of the NFL can put the Redskins out of business for going over the cap. So I think sports leagues are particularly insulated from free competition, and particularly likely to successfully engage in anticompetitive collusion in the absence of antitrust laws.
That's not to say that I think that sports leagues should definitely be subject to antitrust laws. (I don't think a salary cap, for example, is necessarily a bad thing even if it amounts to collusion in restraint of trade.) I just think the case is stronger for sports leagues than it is for other industries. But I'm open to the idea that antitrust laws should be repealed entirely and applied to no industries at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
The basic ideas of rule of law and property rights that underlie our employment system have their roots in the Magna Carta, yes.So....labor unions and the illegality of monopolies was addressed in the Magna Carta? Really?
Thank you for addressing me. I totally agree with you on gas stations and such businesses. But we don't want the Bills to compete with the Redskins in terms of how big a payroll their owners can afford (do you?). Are you saying you are for "free market football"?Whether or not they are optimal, they are certainly adequate . . . because we do in fact have healthy sports leagues for our society to enjoy.
On the whole, I think that the best antidote to anticompetitive collusion is a business environment that fosters free competition. If five gas stations are going to fix their prices at $5 a gallon and they invite me to join them, why wouldn't I tell them to go ahead without me and then set my own price at $4.89 a gallon? (And if I don't do it, somebody else will — maybe a new start-up.) Agreements in restraint of trade, in general, tend to be difficult to enforce, and therefore tend to have rather limited negative effects. Participants will always be tempted to cheat in order to gain market share.
In sports leagues, things are a bit different. If the 31 other NFL teams are going to fix salaries at $100 million per team and they invite me to join them . . . what can I do? If I go over the cap, the other 31 teams won't play with me and I'll be out of business. Shell can't put Exxon out of business for cutting prices, but the rest of the NFL can put the Redskins out of business for going over the cap. So I think sports leagues are particularly insulated from free competition, and particularly likely to successfully engage in anticompetitive collusion in the absence of antitrust laws.
I don't think that sports leagues should definitely be subject to antitrust laws. I just think the case is stronger for sports leagues than it is for other industries. But I'm open to the idea that antitrust laws should be repealed entirely and applied to no industries at all.
CalBear
Footballguy
I think it is very difficult to claim that the Redskins competing with the Bills in terms of paying players would inherently result in irreparable harm to the players, the owners as a class, or the fans. Major League Baseball seems to be doing just fine with its payroll disparity. The Florida Marlins led the league in operating income. Revenues are up and almost every franchise is making money.
So you are for free market football too. I guess I've been misjudging this whole debate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
There are things that aren't considered in your hypothetical. First, there is no industry out there where the industry as a whole benefits from roughly similar quality among its products. If the Cowboys/Redskins/Giants/Bears outspend all other teams, the 'product' is diluted...because the product is 'competitive football games' not the Cowboys/Redskins/Bears/Giants. Similarly, there are only 1-2 teams allowed in each market. There is no doubt that the NYC Market is superior to the Tampa Bay Market and will generate more funds. But the Glazers would be met with much resistance if they wanted to move the franchise to Manhattan to take advantage of that market. It benefits the Maras that the Bucs are in Tampa, not New York. It is anti-competitive to disallow the Glazers to move, however. But is the 'product' made better or worse by aggregating teams in the biggest marketplaces. Free markets might dictate that NY could support 4 NFL franchises and that Tampa can support none (in a 32 team field - which, in and of itself - is an anti-competitive restriction).Whether or not they are optimal, they are certainly adequate . . . because we do in fact have healthy sports leagues for our society to enjoy.
On the whole, I think that the best antidote to anticompetitive collusion is a business environment that fosters free competition. If five gas stations are going to fix their prices at $5 a gallon and they invite me to join them, why wouldn't I tell them to go ahead without me and then set my own price at $4.89 a gallon? (And if I don't do it, somebody else will — maybe a new start-up.) Agreements in restraint of trade, in general, tend to be difficult to enforce, and therefore tend to have rather limited negative effects. Participants will always be tempted to cheat in order to gain market share.
In sports leagues, things are a bit different. If the 31 other NFL teams are going to fix salaries at $100 million per team (anti-competitive - would not be allowed) and they invite me to join them . . . what can I do? If I go over the cap, the other 31 teams won't play with me and I'll be out of business. Shell can't put Exxon out of business for cutting prices, but the rest of the NFL can put the Redskins out of business for going over the cap. So I think sports leagues are particularly insulated from free competition, and particularly likely to successfully engage in anticompetitive collusion in the absence of antitrust laws.
That's not to say that I think that sports leagues should definitely be subject to antitrust laws. (I don't think a salary cap, for example, is necessarily a bad thing even if it amounts to collusion in restraint of trade.) I just think the case is stronger for sports leagues than it is for other industries. But I'm open to the idea that antitrust laws should be repealed entirely and applied to no industries at all.
Not necessarily, and I edited my last post to say that I don't think a salary cap, for example, is necessarily a bad thing even if it amounts to collusion in restraint of trade.It's just that if we determine that collusion in restraint of trade is a bad thing, I think legally prohibiting it is more necessary to prevent it from occurring in a sustained way in sports leagues than it is in other industries.
But that's a big if. I don't think things would be so bad if the 32 teams were allowed to operate, to the extent they choose to, as if they were a single entity.
CalBear
Footballguy
I'm not necessarily for it, I just don't think you can demonstrate that Congressional action is necessary to avoid the situation where the NFL might have a free labor market. Or that NFL players must automatically give up their employment rights because otherwise there might be a free market.
Yes, I agree with all of that.There are things that aren't considered in your hypothetical. First, there is no industry out there where the industry as a whole benefits from roughly similar quality among its products. If the Cowboys/Redskins/Giants/Bears outspend all other teams, the 'product' is diluted...because the product is 'competitive football games' not the Cowboys/Redskins/Bears/Giants. Similarly, there are only 1-2 teams allowed in each market. There is no doubt that the NYC Market is superior to the Tampa Bay Market and will generate more funds. But the Glazers would be met with much resistance if they wanted to move the franchise to Manhattan to take advantage of that market. It benefits the Maras that the Bucs are in Tampa, not New York. It is anti-competitive to disallow the Glazers to move, however. But is the 'product' made better or worse by aggregating teams in the biggest marketplaces. Free markets might dictate that NY could support 4 NFL franchises and that Tampa can support none (in a 32 team field - which, in and of itself - is an anti-competitive restriction).Whether or not they are optimal, they are certainly adequate . . . because we do in fact have healthy sports leagues for our society to enjoy.
On the whole, I think that the best antidote to anticompetitive collusion is a business environment that fosters free competition. If five gas stations are going to fix their prices at $5 a gallon and they invite me to join them, why wouldn't I tell them to go ahead without me and then set my own price at $4.89 a gallon? (And if I don't do it, somebody else will — maybe a new start-up.) Agreements in restraint of trade, in general, tend to be difficult to enforce, and therefore tend to have rather limited negative effects. Participants will always be tempted to cheat in order to gain market share.
In sports leagues, things are a bit different. If the 31 other NFL teams are going to fix salaries at $100 million per team (anti-competitive - would not be allowed) and they invite me to join them . . . what can I do? If I go over the cap, the other 31 teams won't play with me and I'll be out of business. Shell can't put Exxon out of business for cutting prices, but the rest of the NFL can put the Redskins out of business for going over the cap. So I think sports leagues are particularly insulated from free competition, and particularly likely to successfully engage in anticompetitive collusion in the absence of antitrust laws.
That's not to say that I think that sports leagues should definitely be subject to antitrust laws. (I don't think a salary cap, for example, is necessarily a bad thing even if it amounts to collusion in restraint of trade.) I just think the case is stronger for sports leagues than it is for other industries. But I'm open to the idea that antitrust laws should be repealed entirely and applied to no industries at all.
