Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

Baseball was once called the " National Pastime" . That is certainly no longer true. In fact, I believe you just made my point. Baseball is popular locally but the NFL is national in scope and anything that changes that is not good for the overall health and popularity of the NFL.

Define "health."

Health is defined as the overall financial viability of the NFL as a whole, as well as the financial and competitive viability of the individual teams. The structure of the league as a business model is more important than any current group of players. The names on the back of the jersey change constantly, the name of each team is what most fans root for.

The structure of the league as a business model is more important to the owners than any current group of players. The current model certainly protects 31 fellows from incursions into their "territory" and pretty much guarantees a healthy return on their investment. The jury is still out as to whether that's good for most of the rest of us.

For me the jury is not still out. I like the balance. I wish the other leagues had more of it.

I think I'd prefer a less exclusive model. But it's the differing viewpoints that makes this such an interesting discussion.

Not sure what you mean by "less exclusive"? If the same 5 teams win every year that to me is more exclusive.

By less exclusive I mean that only 32 team owners have a chance to compete.

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

 

[roadkill1292]

Baseball was once called the " National Pastime" . That is certainly no longer true. In fact, I believe you just made my point. Baseball is popular locally but the NFL is national in scope and anything that changes that is not good for the overall health and popularity of the NFL.

Define "health."

Health is defined as the overall financial viability of the NFL as a whole, as well as the financial and competitive viability of the individual teams. The structure of the league as a business model is more important than any current group of players. The names on the back of the jersey change constantly, the name of each team is what most fans root for.

The structure of the league as a business model is more important to the owners than any current group of players. The current model certainly protects 31 fellows from incursions into their "territory" and pretty much guarantees a healthy return on their investment. The jury is still out as to whether that's good for most of the rest of us.

For me the jury is not still out. I like the balance. I wish the other leagues had more of it.

I think I'd prefer a less exclusive model. But it's the differing viewpoints that makes this such an interesting discussion.

Not sure what you mean by "less exclusive"? If the same 5 teams win every year that to me is more exclusive.

By less exclusive I mean that only 32 team owners have a chance to compete.

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

Open enrollment. Relegation. A clear path for franchises to advance or be demoted. More public ownership along the lines of the Packers. More pressure on the moribund franchises of the current NFL. More choices for the fans. More opportunities for the players.

 

[cobalt_27]

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

Open enrollment. Relegation. A clear path for franchises to advance or be demoted. More public ownership along the lines of the Packers. More pressure on the moribund franchises of the current NFL. More choices for the fans. More opportunities for the players.

Hmm. Regarding your first tidbits, I think the NFL is doing just fine not being soccer. I think most would agree with this. Public ownership does what, exactly? Do you think it would work in the same way for Carolina or Houston or Jacksonville the same way it works for Green Bay?And, I don't have any idea what it means for there to be more choices for the fans or more opportunities for the players. More choices to do what? For the players, do you want them to be free agents every year? Every 2 years? Every 3? Is that what they even want?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sounds like at least one big step forward.

 

[roadkill1292]

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

Open enrollment. Relegation. A clear path for franchises to advance or be demoted. More public ownership along the lines of the Packers. More pressure on the moribund franchises of the current NFL. More choices for the fans. More opportunities for the players.

Hmm. Regarding your first tidbits, I think the NFL is doing just fine not being soccer. I think most would agree with this. Most is a mild understatement, doncha think?

Public ownership does what, exactly? Do you think it would work in the same way for Carolina or Houston or Jacksonville the same way it works for Green Bay?

If there wasn't a limit on the number of teams playing in my new federation, cities of all sizes may choose to pick the Green Bay model in lieu of being beholden to a wealthy club owner.

And, I don't have any idea what it means for there to be more choices for the fans or more opportunities for the players. More choices to do what? For the players, do you want them to be free agents every year? Every 2 years? Every 3? Is that what they even want?

Fans in Des Moines don't have a home professional team to root for, at least not one in a truly national league with a chance to advance to ever higher plateaus. As far as the players go, I just want them to be able to have a wider choice of employers. I don't really care what the length of the contract is that they end up signing. When it's up, they're a free agent.

 

[cobalt_27]

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

Open enrollment. Relegation. A clear path for franchises to advance or be demoted. More public ownership along the lines of the Packers. More pressure on the moribund franchises of the current NFL. More choices for the fans. More opportunities for the players.

Hmm. Regarding your first tidbits, I think the NFL is doing just fine not being soccer. I think most would agree with this. Most is a mild understatement, doncha think?

Public ownership does what, exactly? Do you think it would work in the same way for Carolina or Houston or Jacksonville the same way it works for Green Bay?

If there wasn't a limit on the number of teams playing in my new federation, cities of all sizes may choose to pick the Green Bay model in lieu of being beholden to a wealthy club owner.

And, I don't have any idea what it means for there to be more choices for the fans or more opportunities for the players. More choices to do what? For the players, do you want them to be free agents every year? Every 2 years? Every 3? Is that what they even want?

Fans in Des Moines don't have a home professional team to root for, at least not one in a truly national league with a chance to advance to ever higher plateaus. As far as the players go, I just want them to be able to have a wider choice of employers. I don't really care what the length of the contract is that they end up signing. When it's up, they're a free agent.

So, you'd like 300+ teams in your federation? Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

I appreciate that you're thinking outside the box. Thank goodness for fans and the sport, there isn't an iota chance of any of this happening.

 

[roadkill1292]

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

Open enrollment. Relegation. A clear path for franchises to advance or be demoted. More public ownership along the lines of the Packers. More pressure on the moribund franchises of the current NFL. More choices for the fans. More opportunities for the players.

Hmm. Regarding your first tidbits, I think the NFL is doing just fine not being soccer. I think most would agree with this. Most is a mild understatement, doncha think?

Public ownership does what, exactly? Do you think it would work in the same way for Carolina or Houston or Jacksonville the same way it works for Green Bay?

If there wasn't a limit on the number of teams playing in my new federation, cities of all sizes may choose to pick the Green Bay model in lieu of being beholden to a wealthy club owner.

And, I don't have any idea what it means for there to be more choices for the fans or more opportunities for the players. More choices to do what? For the players, do you want them to be free agents every year? Every 2 years? Every 3? Is that what they even want?

Fans in Des Moines don't have a home professional team to root for, at least not one in a truly national league with a chance to advance to ever higher plateaus. As far as the players go, I just want them to be able to have a wider choice of employers. I don't really care what the length of the contract is that they end up signing. When it's up, they're a free agent.

So, you'd like 300+ teams in your federation? Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

I appreciate that you're thinking outside the box. Thank goodness for fans and the sport, there isn't an iota chance of any of this happening.

I'm out there, man.

 

[CalBear]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

 

[roadkill1292]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

 

[David Dodds]

Sounds like at least one big step forward.

Cooler heads are starting to prevail as it becomes obvious that everyone loses in a lost season. I still think mid-July is the date both sides would like to get this done by. This would allow time for free agency, trades, training camps, and preseason games. I am optimistic that everyone is starting to realize what's at stake.

 

[cobalt_27]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Sure. I don't think I claimed it did. But, I think you need to check your premises as to why America might do a few things differently than the rest of world. It know it's in vogue with the anti-money-capitalism-business folks here to bag on this country and how things are done. For some of these people, if the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--these people would prefer the England system.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Baseball was once called the " National Pastime" . That is certainly no longer true. In fact, I believe you just made my point. Baseball is popular locally but the NFL is national in scope and anything that changes that is not good for the overall health and popularity of the NFL.

Define "health."

Health is defined as the overall financial viability of the NFL as a whole, as well as the financial and competitive viability of the individual teams. The structure of the league as a business model is more important than any current group of players. The names on the back of the jersey change constantly, the name of each team is what most fans root for.

The structure of the league as a business model is more important to the owners than any current group of players. The current model certainly protects 31 fellows from incursions into their "territory" and pretty much guarantees a healthy return on their investment. The jury is still out as to whether that's good for most of the rest of us.

For me the jury is not still out. I like the balance. I wish the other leagues had more of it.

I think I'd prefer a less exclusive model. But it's the differing viewpoints that makes this such an interesting discussion.

Not sure what you mean by "less exclusive"? If the same 5 teams win every year that to me is more exclusive.

By less exclusive I mean that only 32 team owners have a chance to compete.

So you'd prefer franchises passed around like a doobie? Hoping to see Omaha win the Super Bowl one day??

 

[ConstruxBoy]

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

Open enrollment. Relegation. A clear path for franchises to advance or be demoted. More public ownership along the lines of the Packers. More pressure on the moribund franchises of the current NFL. More choices for the fans. More opportunities for the players.

Hmm. Regarding your first tidbits, I think the NFL is doing just fine not being soccer. I think most would agree with this. Most is a mild understatement, doncha think?

Public ownership does what, exactly? Do you think it would work in the same way for Carolina or Houston or Jacksonville the same way it works for Green Bay?

If there wasn't a limit on the number of teams playing in my new federation, cities of all sizes may choose to pick the Green Bay model in lieu of being beholden to a wealthy club owner.

And, I don't have any idea what it means for there to be more choices for the fans or more opportunities for the players. More choices to do what? For the players, do you want them to be free agents every year? Every 2 years? Every 3? Is that what they even want?

Fans in Des Moines don't have a home professional team to root for, at least not one in a truly national league with a chance to advance to ever higher plateaus. As far as the players go, I just want them to be able to have a wider choice of employers. I don't really care what the length of the contract is that they end up signing. When it's up, they're a free agent.

So, you'd like 300+ teams in your federation? Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

I appreciate that you're thinking outside the box. Thank goodness for fans and the sport, there isn't an iota chance of any of this happening.

I'm out there, man.

Holy #### that may be the truest statement ever uttered on this board. I appreciate your honesty.

 

[D.J.]

How is this the labor thread and no one is talking about the meetings the.last few days or the court hearing tomorrow?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

How is this the labor thread and no one is talking about the meetings the.last few days or the court hearing tomorrow?

It's more interesting discussing the effects of glue sniffing on a person's NFL structural desires.

 

[D.J.]

How is this the labor thread and no one is talking about the meetings the.last few days or the court hearing tomorrow?

It's more interesting discussing the effects of glue sniffing on a person's NFL structural desires.

Fair enough. Carry on.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It know it's in vogue with the anti-money-capitalism-business folks here to bag on this country and how things are done.

The NFL has nothing to do with capitalism. The entire industry is essentially closed off to new entrants, and the worst owners never suffer the financial consequences of their poor decision-making that they would in an open market. Labor costs are artificially fixed below market rate. Poor performing teams are given handouts to help them compete instead of being driven out of business. And etc, etc.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

It know it's in vogue with the anti-money-capitalism-business folks here to bag on this country and how things are done.

The NFL has nothing to do with capitalism.

If people want to get together and organize to create a single bargaining group, then the capitalist system allows for it. Likewise, the NFL is part of our market for entertainment and has to compete against others for our money. If the NFL, or our home team, doesn't do a good job, people go watch another sport or rent a DVD. We see this happening all the time.

Firms getting together and forming agreements is also part of capitalism. It's called collusion and it has persisted since time immemorial. Consumers are free not to consume if they choose not to.

The NFL ceases to be "capitalistic" if the public, rather than private individuals own the NFL and it is the public that enjoys the profits that flow from their business.

Now it is true that the government subsidizes the NFL, such as through stadium construction. To the degree to which the government owns the NFL, likely a negligible share, the NFL ceases to be capitalistic.

The entire industry is essentially closed off to new entrants, and the worst owners never suffer the financial consequences of their poor decision-making that they would in an open market. Labor costs are artificially fixed below market rate. Poor performing teams are given handouts to help them compete instead of being driven out of business. And etc, etc.

Define the "industry." If you mean entertainment industry, it's wide open. Also, bad or poorly managed teams suffer economic consequences all the time (teams move, fans leave, etc).

If anything, labor is fixed far above a market rate -- that is precisely why the players form a union in the first place. If the league (as opposed to industry) wasn't able to artificially restrict entry, wages for football players would fall like a rock.

 

[cobalt_27]

It know it's in vogue with the anti-money-capitalism-business folks here to bag on this country and how things are done.

The NFL has nothing to do with capitalism.

If people want to get together and organize to create a single bargaining group, then the capitalist system allows for it. Likewise, the NFL is part of our market for entertainment and has to compete against others for our money. If the NFL, or our home team, doesn't do a good job, people go watch another sport or rent a DVD. We see this happening all the time.

Firms getting together and forming agreements is also part of capitalism. It's called collusion and it has persisted since time immemorial. Consumers are free not to consume if they choose not to.

The NFL ceases to be "capitalistic" if the public, rather than private individuals own the NFL and it is the public that enjoys the profits that flow from their business.

Now it is true that the government subsidizes the NFL, such as through stadium construction. To the degree to which the government owns the NFL, likely a negligible share, the NFL ceases to be capitalistic.

The entire industry is essentially closed off to new entrants, and the worst owners never suffer the financial consequences of their poor decision-making that they would in an open market. Labor costs are artificially fixed below market rate. Poor performing teams are given handouts to help them compete instead of being driven out of business. And etc, etc.

Define the "industry." If you mean entertainment industry, it's wide open. Also, bad or poorly managed teams suffer economic consequences all the time (teams move, fans leave, etc).

If anything, labor is fixed far above a market rate -- that is precisely why the players form a union in the first place. If the league (as opposed to industry) wasn't able to artificially restrict entry, wages for football players would fall like a rock.

 

[renesauz]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

While it's true I'm an Eagles fan, I would jump ship if an NFL team were to make Hampton Roads their home. Under your system...somebody quickly would! And still...I'm not interested in the soccer model. I'm not petrified of change...I really don't like the model!

 

[roadkill1292]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Sure. I don't think I claimed it did. But, I think you need to check your premises as to why America might do a few things differently than the rest of world. It know it's in vogue with the anti-money-capitalism-business folks here to bag on this country and how things are done. For some of these people, if the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--these people would prefer the England system.

I think a relegation system is much more capitalistic. Right now, financially qualified people are prohibited from owning a franchise and less adept owners are protected from new and more vigorous competition.

 

[roadkill1292]

Baseball was once called the " National Pastime" . That is certainly no longer true. In fact, I believe you just made my point. Baseball is popular locally but the NFL is national in scope and anything that changes that is not good for the overall health and popularity of the NFL.

Define "health."

Health is defined as the overall financial viability of the NFL as a whole, as well as the financial and competitive viability of the individual teams. The structure of the league as a business model is more important than any current group of players. The names on the back of the jersey change constantly, the name of each team is what most fans root for.

The structure of the league as a business model is more important to the owners than any current group of players. The current model certainly protects 31 fellows from incursions into their "territory" and pretty much guarantees a healthy return on their investment. The jury is still out as to whether that's good for most of the rest of us.

For me the jury is not still out. I like the balance. I wish the other leagues had more of it.

I think I'd prefer a less exclusive model. But it's the differing viewpoints that makes this such an interesting discussion.

Not sure what you mean by "less exclusive"? If the same 5 teams win every year that to me is more exclusive.

By less exclusive I mean that only 32 team owners have a chance to compete.

So you'd prefer franchises passed around like a doobie? Hoping to see Omaha win the Super Bowl one day??

I don't know how you've drawn this conclusion. I don't care if Mike Brown owns the Bengals until he's six feet under. But I also think it would be interesting to see Warren Buffet start a franchise in Omaha and play for a Super Bowl in a few years while the Bengals have been relegated to Division 3 in the meantime.

 

[roadkill1292]

What would you prefer to happen to make this a less exclusive model?

Open enrollment. Relegation. A clear path for franchises to advance or be demoted. More public ownership along the lines of the Packers. More pressure on the moribund franchises of the current NFL. More choices for the fans. More opportunities for the players.

Hmm. Regarding your first tidbits, I think the NFL is doing just fine not being soccer. I think most would agree with this. Most is a mild understatement, doncha think?

Public ownership does what, exactly? Do you think it would work in the same way for Carolina or Houston or Jacksonville the same way it works for Green Bay?

If there wasn't a limit on the number of teams playing in my new federation, cities of all sizes may choose to pick the Green Bay model in lieu of being beholden to a wealthy club owner.

And, I don't have any idea what it means for there to be more choices for the fans or more opportunities for the players. More choices to do what? For the players, do you want them to be free agents every year? Every 2 years? Every 3? Is that what they even want?

Fans in Des Moines don't have a home professional team to root for, at least not one in a truly national league with a chance to advance to ever higher plateaus. As far as the players go, I just want them to be able to have a wider choice of employers. I don't really care what the length of the contract is that they end up signing. When it's up, they're a free agent.

So, you'd like 300+ teams in your federation? Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

I appreciate that you're thinking outside the box. Thank goodness for fans and the sport, there isn't an iota chance of any of this happening.

I'm out there, man.

Holy #### that may be the truest statement ever uttered on this board. I appreciate your honesty.

I may be crazy but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[roadkill1292]

It know it's in vogue with the anti-money-capitalism-business folks here to bag on this country and how things are done.

The NFL has nothing to do with capitalism. The entire industry is essentially closed off to new entrants, and the worst owners never suffer the financial consequences of their poor decision-making that they would in an open market. Labor costs are artificially fixed below market rate. Poor performing teams are given handouts to help them compete instead of being driven out of business. And etc, etc.

 

[roadkill1292]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

While it's true I'm an Eagles fan, I would jump ship if an NFL team were to make Hampton Roads their home. Under your system...somebody quickly would! And still...I'm not interested in the soccer model. I'm not petrified of change...I really don't like the model!

Well now you're just being a walking self-contradiction. Have a beer and think about this statement.Good discussion, everybody.

:endhippling:

 

[renesauz]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

While it's true I'm an Eagles fan, I would jump ship if an NFL team were to make Hampton Roads their home. Under your system...somebody quickly would! And still...I'm not interested in the soccer model. I'm not petrified of change...I really don't like the model!

Well now you're just being a walking self-contradiction. Have a beer and think about this statement.Good discussion, everybody.

:endhippling:

Nothing contradictory about it. I don't wanna see an NFL with 60 teams in 4 or 5 different "levels", as if it's High School football. The NFL IS the top level. Want minor league football? I'm all over that. But a system where you can't even establish rivalries because one or another team is heading up or down? (Unlike in HS, where teams rarely change "level".)I'd love to see a team in Hampton Roads, but I want a real team...not a 3rd division nobody. We've already got that (a startup UFL team in Va. Beach.)

 

[roadkill1292]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

While it's true I'm an Eagles fan, I would jump ship if an NFL team were to make Hampton Roads their home. Under your system...somebody quickly would! And still...I'm not interested in the soccer model. I'm not petrified of change...I really don't like the model!

Well now you're just being a walking self-contradiction. Have a beer and think about this statement.Good discussion, everybody.

:endhippling:

Nothing contradictory about it. I don't wanna see an NFL with 60 teams in 4 or 5 different "levels", as if it's High School football. The NFL IS the top level. Want minor league football? I'm all over that. But a system where you can't even establish rivalries because one or another team is heading up or down? (Unlike in HS, where teams rarely change "level".)I'd love to see a team in Hampton Roads, but I want a real team...not a 3rd division nobody. We've already got that (a startup UFL team in Va. Beach.)

More contradiction. The way to keep them "minor" is to prevent them from having a chance to play their way into "major." A team with a legitimate avenue of advancement is very real. And what's so "major" about a team that's not allowed to fail because of some birthright?

 

[Sidewinder16]

jacobo_moses started a thread about it, but I figured I'd add it here, too.

Andrew Brandt is tweeting from the courtroom.

 

[jbobbett]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

While it's true I'm an Eagles fan, I would jump ship if an NFL team were to make Hampton Roads their home. Under your system...somebody quickly would! And still...I'm not interested in the soccer model. I'm not petrified of change...I really don't like the model!

Well now you're just being a walking self-contradiction. Have a beer and think about this statement.Good discussion, everybody.

:endhippling:

Nothing contradictory about it. I don't wanna see an NFL with 60 teams in 4 or 5 different "levels", as if it's High School football. The NFL IS the top level. Want minor league football? I'm all over that. But a system where you can't even establish rivalries because one or another team is heading up or down? (Unlike in HS, where teams rarely change "level".)I'd love to see a team in Hampton Roads, but I want a real team...not a 3rd division nobody. We've already got that (a startup UFL team in Va. Beach.)

More contradiction. The way to keep them "minor" is to prevent them from having a chance to play their way into "major." A team with a legitimate avenue of advancement is very real. And what's so "major" about a team that's not allowed to fail because of some birthright?

I don't get this discussion. The NFL has plenty of incentive to expand, which is why they do it periodically. The current owners profit when a new owner buys into the club. They grow the fanbase. I think all the American sports leagues are as big as they think they can go at any given moment. Why would it be any different?

 

[renesauz]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

While it's true I'm an Eagles fan, I would jump ship if an NFL team were to make Hampton Roads their home. Under your system...somebody quickly would! And still...I'm not interested in the soccer model. I'm not petrified of change...I really don't like the model!

Well now you're just being a walking self-contradiction. Have a beer and think about this statement.Good discussion, everybody.

:endhippling:

Nothing contradictory about it. I don't wanna see an NFL with 60 teams in 4 or 5 different "levels", as if it's High School football. The NFL IS the top level. Want minor league football? I'm all over that. But a system where you can't even establish rivalries because one or another team is heading up or down? (Unlike in HS, where teams rarely change "level".)I'd love to see a team in Hampton Roads, but I want a real team...not a 3rd division nobody. We've already got that (a startup UFL team in Va. Beach.)

More contradiction. The way to keep them "minor" is to prevent them from having a chance to play their way into "major." A team with a legitimate avenue of advancement is very real. And what's so "major" about a team that's not allowed to fail because of some birthright?

Good grief man. I'm talking about maintaining a LEAGUE (not a DIVISION) where every team can be competitive with every other team. The NFL has trouble finding 32 starting caliber QB's now. I'm NOT saying your idea couldn't work, but I think you're underestimating the value of rivalries, and overestimating the available talent. IN the end, what I (and many others) DON'T want is a system where a bunch of teams act as feeders for a handful of elite teams. UNder your system, a handful of elite teams in the top division would be the only ones with any shot at a Super Bowl. The Hampton Roads Whatevers would NEVER have that shot minus some uber-billionare willing to lose millions to make it happen. (Over several years no less because first he'd have to advance divisions even to TRY to compete for the real title.)

Multi-tiered leagues are a mess, period. It has nothing to do with fearing "change"....the leagues are a friggin mess with only a handful of teams capable of winning at the top level.

 

[dparker713]

More contradiction. The way to keep them "minor" is to prevent them from having a chance to play their way into "major." A team with a legitimate avenue of advancement is very real. And what's so "major" about a team that's not allowed to fail because of some birthright?

There are still plenty of bars to competition in the Premier League. Don't kid yourself, Wiggan ain't ever challanging ManU.

 

[roadkill1292]

Most people in this country clearly would prefer the current system over what's done in soccer. This isn't an exercise in what the good people of Columbia, South Africa, or Italy want for the NFL.

If the situation were reversed--if the NFL were organized like soccer, and soccer in England had 32 tightly controlled franchises--"most people in this country" would prefer the NFL system. The fact that people are biased towards the status quo provides no information about the quality of the status quo.

Change is very difficult for some most. The current model is nice and neat for the league's legions of fans. But certain parts of it sucks for many others. For one, nobody else can break in, regardless of how well qualified, except under rare circumstances. That negatively affects people who want to own a franchise and fans in cities who don't have a franchise (rene's comments notwithstanding -- he's an Eagles fan and therefore cannot be counted on to think rationally). It bugs me to no end that Mike Brown has a franchise when so many better qualified people don't. It bugs me that the fans in Los Angeles and San Antonio can't have their own teams when there's plenty of labor and plenty of ownership money and plenty of eyeballs to go around.The status quo is all about protecting the profits of the existing 31 and we have all been complicit in helping them achieve this.

While it's true I'm an Eagles fan, I would jump ship if an NFL team were to make Hampton Roads their home. Under your system...somebody quickly would! And still...I'm not interested in the soccer model. I'm not petrified of change...I really don't like the model!

Well now you're just being a walking self-contradiction. Have a beer and think about this statement.Good discussion, everybody.

:endhippling:

Nothing contradictory about it. I don't wanna see an NFL with 60 teams in 4 or 5 different "levels", as if it's High School football. The NFL IS the top level. Want minor league football? I'm all over that. But a system where you can't even establish rivalries because one or another team is heading up or down? (Unlike in HS, where teams rarely change "level".)I'd love to see a team in Hampton Roads, but I want a real team...not a 3rd division nobody. We've already got that (a startup UFL team in Va. Beach.)

More contradiction. The way to keep them "minor" is to prevent them from having a chance to play their way into "major." A team with a legitimate avenue of advancement is very real. And what's so "major" about a team that's not allowed to fail because of some birthright?

Good grief man. I'm talking about maintaining a LEAGUE (not a DIVISION) where every team can be competitive with every other team. The NFL has trouble finding 32 starting caliber QB's now. I'm NOT saying your idea couldn't work, but I think you're underestimating the value of rivalries, and overestimating the available talent. IN the end, what I (and many others) DON'T want is a system where a bunch of teams act as feeders for a handful of elite teams. UNder your system, a handful of elite teams in the top division would be the only ones with any shot at a Super Bowl. The Hampton Roads Whatevers would NEVER have that shot minus some uber-billionare willing to lose millions to make it happen. (Over several years no less because first he'd have to advance divisions even to TRY to compete for the real title.)

Multi-tiered leagues are a mess, period. It has nothing to do with fearing "change"....the leagues are a friggin mess with only a handful of teams capable of winning at the top level.

There's nothing to say that a relegation system couldn't adopt rules designed to encourage a rough parity at the division levels. In fact, if the league was more inclusive by nature, it could probably get away with a few more restrictions that brush up against the anti-trust laws than it can now.There are flaws in both systems. We could incorporate the best of both.

 

[roadkill1292]

More contradiction. The way to keep them "minor" is to prevent them from having a chance to play their way into "major." A team with a legitimate avenue of advancement is very real. And what's so "major" about a team that's not allowed to fail because of some birthright?

There are still plenty of bars to competition in the Premier League. Don't kid yourself, Wiggan ain't ever challanging ManU.

And Omaha ain't challenging the Steelers, either. Probably. Maybe. It depends. I'm just saying that Omaha should have a chance to supplant the Bengals at the top level -- if it can. If it can't, I'm fine with that, too.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Anyone who knows of David Boies didn't think the owners were unprepared. For those who aren't aware of him, he:

--Represented the government in the monopoly case against Microsoft (won - verdict upheld, but remedy overturned on appeal)

--Represented Al Gore in Bush v Gore (lost)

--Partnered with Ted Olsen (his adversary in Bush v. Gore) to overturn California's Prop 8 (won)

And has had a number of other high-profile cases as well. He's considered one of the best lawyers in the country. I tried to dig up a New Yorker profile on him from the Microsoft trial ten years ago, but it's sub only and I can't seem to log in.

ETA: the idea that the owners are getting poor legal advice is also laughable. If it turns out that they're fighting a lost battle it's on them.

By the way, Boies and Olsen are adversaries again. Olsen is representing the NFL players in this case.

Today's oral arguments featured Ted Olsen against Paul Clement. There's a well written story about Paul Clement (and his legal defense of DOMA) here.

 

[Andrew Garda]

If you had a multi tiered league in football, you would probably find two things:

1) the talent pool would be so diluted that the quality of the overall product would likely suffer.

and/or

2) you accidentally killed college football - because in order to have decent talent you'd end up gutting the CFB ranks of their best players.

At least short term, I think it would be a big mess and hurt the game.

A decade in? That'd be interesting.....assuming the sport survived.

I still say the best fit for this is college football which already essentially has tiers in place.

 

[Faust]

What we learned from NFL hearing

Michael McCann

The legal showdown between the NFL and players took place Friday morning before Judges Steven Collton, William Benton and Kermit Bye of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Two former U.S. Solicitors General, Paul Clement (for the NFL) and Theodore "Ted" Olson (for the players), each spoke and answered questions from the judges for about 30 minutes. Clement and Olson offered competing arguments on whether U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson was correct in enjoining the NFL's lockout, which bars NFL players from their employment with NFL teams.

What was learned?

1. Disappointing news for players: The judges gave no indication they will change their vote pattern

The players have already lost twice before this three-judge panel, with Judges Collton and Benton voting to stay Judge Nelson's order. In explaining their decision to issue stays, the two judges clearly favored the NFL's legal arguments. Judge Bye, in contrast, dissented and was sympathetic to the players' claims.

While questions posed by judges are not necessarily indicative of how they view a legal dispute, the players were probably hoping for more adversarial or aggressive questioning Friday by Judges Collton and Benton of the league. Instead of a heated exchange that can sometimes arise when judges explore the limits of an oral argument, Friday's proceeding was relatively calm -- perhaps because the three judges have already reached their conclusions.

2. No surprises: The NFL and players stuck to their legal scripts

Oral arguments normally entail a summation of a party's legal arguments, and today was no exception. Clement insisted that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevented Judge Nelson from enjoining the lockout, while Olson, reiterating the reasoning of Judge Nelson, dismissed the relevance of the Act to the specific dispute at hand while also portraying it as compatible with an injunction. Clement and Olson also disagreed on whether the dispute should be examined under antitrust law (the players' preference) or labor law, and whether the court should wait until the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determines if the NFLPA's decertification was a sham. While the arguments forced Clement and Olson to specify some of their clients' more sweeping claims, the arguments did not shed much new light.

3. The NFL regards the lockout as a "self-inflicted" wound

Even though the lockout would seem to most harm NFL players -- it prevents players from receiving compensation they would be owed under their contracts, as well as opportunities to sign and train with teams -- Clement characterized the lockout as causing a "self-inflicted wound," thus implying that owners have been hurt by it. In Clement's view, the pain caused by a lockout is essential to convince the parties to reach a new collective bargaining agreement. In contrast, Clement rejected the idea that the lockout has necessarily caused the players irreparable harm.

If Judge Dye, who last month dissented to Judges Collton's and Benton's decision to temporarily stay Judge Nelson's order, once again dissents, expect him to take issue with Clement's characterization of the harm caused by the lockout. While owners are undoubtedly harmed by the negative attention associated with the lockout as well as by the disruption in their business, the lockout and the corresponding economic harm is clearly directed at the players.

4. The NFL wants the labor exemption from antitrust laws to last at least until March 2012

When the NFL and NFLPA collectively bargained the salary cap, restrictions on free agency and other restraints on trade as part of a collective bargaining agreement, those restraints were exempt from federal antitrust law. The labor exemption immunizes restraints from antitrust law if they are borne through collective bargaining. Provided the parties remain in good-faith negotiations, the immunity may continue even after a collective bargaining agreement has expired.

When the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement expired on March 11, and the NFLPA disclaimed its representation of players, the restraints were -- in the view of players -- vulnerable to antitrust scrutiny. The players then filed the Tom Brady et. al v. NFL antitrust lawsuit.

As raised in the NFL's legal briefs, Clement took issue with the applicability of antitrust law. He insisted that since the owners and players continue to try to reach an out-of-court agreement and since the NFL maintains that the NFLPA's decertification was a sham, the exemption should remain in effect. Thus, in Clement's view, the Brady lawsuit should be barred.

Building on his argument, Clement reasoned that the exemption should last at least one "full business cycle" following the collective bargaining agreement's expiration. When asked for clarity as to what he meant by a "business cycle," Clement said one year, which would mean March 11, 2012. The NFL, in other words, wants the three-judge panel to let the league continue with its lockout, during which players are not compensated, into next spring. If the court goes along with the NFL's request, the players, faced with the prospect of no NFL income until at least March, may perceive they have no choice but to acquiesce to NFL labor demands.

In response, Olson portrayed the NFL's interpretation of the labor exemption as without precedential support. He also maintained that the NFLPA no longer represents NFL players, who believe they are acting as individual parties subject to the protections and obligations of federal antitrust law. Along those lines, Olson stressed that the exemption ended when the NFLPA, which signed the collective bargaining agreement, disclaimed its representation of NFL players. Olson also portrayed the NFL as merely trying to escape scrutiny from the area of law it most fears: antitrust law.

5. Judge Bye warned both sides they are better off reaching a deal on their own

Judge Bye informed both sides that the panel would reach a decision in "due course" (meaning the panel won't speed up its process merely because it involves a popular sports league and its players). He also warned the panel could reach a decision that "neither party will like." He further added, with a smile, "We wouldn't be all that hurt if you go out and settle that case" on your own.

Judge Bye's comments highlight that if the owners and players allow three federal judges, who obviously are not in the business of pro football, to dictate the league's future, neither owners nor players may like what's ahead.

One ruling that neither party would probably like is if, as mentioned during today's arguments, the panel allows the NFL to continue the lockout, but only for six months following the March 11, 2011, expiration of the CBA. After those six months are up, the NFLPA decertification could take effect and Judge Nelson's original order enjoining the lockout could be reinstated.

Six months is what the now-expired CBA stipulated the NFLPA had to wait to decertify if it did not decertify before the CBA expired. Six months following March 11, 2011, would be Sept. 11, which in addition to being a day of great historical significance to our country, is also three days after the 2011 NFL season is scheduled to begin. This type of compromise outcome would mean players remain locked out, but only until the start of the 2011 NFL season is scheduled to begin.

In lieu of an unappealing court decision, the owners and players could simply reach a deal on their own. Both sides are well aware of the other's demands. Both sides know the league is profitable. Both sides know that a prolonged lockout -- particularly one that leads to a cancellation of games -- could cause the league irreparable harm, be it in the form of current fans who tune out and don't tune back on, kids who would have become NFL fans this fall but who instead turn to other forms of entertainment, or television networks that no longer offer as much money to broadcast NFL games. Both sides would be worse off if the pie of wealth they are fighting over shrinks because of their fighting. Judge Bye's remarks clearly admonish the owners and players to think about these consequences.

Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law. He also teaches a sports law and analytics reading group at Yale Law School. Follow him on Twitter.

 

[David Dodds]

I think the judges are going to rule that 6 months needs to lapse before the lockout is lifted. Since the players decertified on March 11, this would put the date at September 11th of this season. The judges hinted at a decision that no side will want. I think this meets the criteria.

If this can't get both sides to hammer out a fair deal, nothing will.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

what is up with all this weird soccer talk?

 

[D.J.]

I think the judges are going to rule that 6 months needs to lapse before the lockout is lifted. Since the players decertified on March 11, this would put the date at September 11th of this season. The judges hinted at a decision that no side will want. I think this meets the criteria. If this can't get both sides to hammer out a fair deal, nothing will.

Sometimes throughout this process I have felt like the courts are trying harder to get a deal done then the players or owners.Let's hope we never find out what the judges decide to rule because a settlement is reached first

 

[cobalt_27]

what is up with all this weird soccer talk?

There are some people who really hate America, hate the NFL, or both.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The oral argument was fascinating to me, because it illuminated the jury-rigging that is necessary for modern sports leagues to exist in their current forms. They are clearly collusive, and they clearly dominate their respective industries. So antitrust liability seems to naturally follow. The leagues have escaped this quandry (when it comes to the players) by falling under the nonstatutory labor exemption. But what if the players don't want to play ball, as it were? Brady v. NFL is the result.

That's why this injunction may not matter that much. Let's say the court holds that Norris-LaGuardia prohibits the injunction. Well, that only removes the injunction against the lockout; it does not mean that the NFL won't ultimately be liable for antitrust violations. In fact, Judge Benton seemed to indicate that antitrust damages would continue to accrue even if the lockout could not be enjoined under the NLA. Or, let's say that the injunction is lifted because the nonstatutory labor exemption still applies. Well, even Clement admitted it can't apply forever -- so how long? Clement seemed to be pushing for at least a year, but Benton seemed comfortable with six months -- which would be, according to his calculations, September 11. Would the antitrust violations and the injunction kick back in then?

So the hearing ultimately convinced me that (a) the players took a truly radical move by disclaiming and (b) this problem is not going away, even after the Eighth Circuit rules on the injunction. I had thought that the longer the lockout lasts, the more it favors the owners -- players need paychecks after all. But what if the longer it lasts, the more antitrust damages that pile up against the league? It's one thing for players to resist a deal in the hopes that the league will cave before they do. That's a hard one to win, and I think the NBPA showed how disastrous such a strategy can be in the late 1990s. But what if the players resist a deal in the hopes that one day soon, it will be all free agency all the time. No draft, no salary cap, no restrictions whatsoever. Could you hold on for a few more months in the hope that there's no salary cap -- hard, soft, or otherwise? Seems like a lot more to fight for.

So for those of you -- like me -- who thought that the disclaimer was just a clever, but ultimately discardable, negotiating tactic, think again. When the news went out that (former) NFLPA president De Smith was calling for "war," I now understand those ramifications. I believe the league brought this upon itself by a series of moves: characterizing the last deal as way too player-friendly, hiring Bob Batterman, opting out of the deal early, and enforcing a lockout. They opened the can of worms. But this could get away from the players, too -- do all players really want a world with no collective bargaining agreements?

In his argument, Clement said that the lockout would be "a self-inflicted wound" and "suicide" if it were not intended to ultimately bring about a settlement of the labor dispute. He's right. And I think the league now, far more than the players, needs to settle that dispute to save itself.

I thought the bolded was pretty interesting in light of the judge's comments that neither side will like the ruling. Suspect that part may be right - and that the judges may rule that the owners can keep the lockout for six or twelve months to force the players back to the table, but that anti-trust damages will accrue in the meantime.This ruling would also provide incentive for both sides to come to an agreement by imposing potentially heavy costs on both sides if they don't.

 

[Hoosier16]

I thought the bolded was pretty interesting in light of the judge's comments that neither side will like the ruling. Suspect that part may be right - and that the judges may rule that the owners can keep the lockout for six or twelve months to force the players back to the table, but that anti-trust damages will accrue in the meantime.This ruling would also provide incentive for both sides to come to an agreement by imposing potentially heavy costs on both sides if they don't.

How can there be any anti-trust damages if there are no violations? What area would the owners be violating during a legally imposed lockout?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

After I posted this last night it also hit me what he was talking about WRT the possibility that a 9/11 end to the lockout might embolden the players. We're already halfway through the six month period. And if the players know that they only have to hold out for 90 days in order to start receiving paychecks again and see a start to the league year they could probably hold everyone together that long.

Then what? A lot of uncertainty in that scenario.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I thought the bolded was pretty interesting in light of the judge's comments that neither side will like the ruling. Suspect that part may be right - and that the judges may rule that the owners can keep the lockout for six or twelve months to force the players back to the table, but that anti-trust damages will accrue in the meantime.This ruling would also provide incentive for both sides to come to an agreement by imposing potentially heavy costs on both sides if they don't.

How can there be any anti-trust damages if there are no violations? What area would the owners be violating during a legally imposed lockout?

I'm out of my legal depth here, so will hope a lawyer type cleans up behind me, but...It almost sounds like the judges wouldn't be trying to resolve the tensions between labor law and anti-trust law. They'd simply be clearing up the uncertainty around how labor law relating to the lockouts does or doesn't apply in this case. With no effect on anti-trust law. But your Q is a good one - what the violations be? Maybe he was referring to the period after the lockout ended? It doesn't sound like that though.

 

[Cripster]

I think the judges are going to rule that 6 months needs to lapse before the lockout is lifted. Since the players decertified on March 11, this would put the date at September 11th of this season. The judges hinted at a decision that no side will want. I think this meets the criteria. If this can't get both sides to hammer out a fair deal, nothing will.

I think this may be the case as well. I am wondering though how this hurts the players. Won't they just hold out until then.

 

[Hoosier16]

I thought the bolded was pretty interesting in light of the judge's comments that neither side will like the ruling. Suspect that part may be right - and that the judges may rule that the owners can keep the lockout for six or twelve months to force the players back to the table, but that anti-trust damages will accrue in the meantime.This ruling would also provide incentive for both sides to come to an agreement by imposing potentially heavy costs on both sides if they don't.

How can there be any anti-trust damages if there are no violations? What area would the owners be violating during a legally imposed lockout?

I'm out of my legal depth here, so will hope a lawyer type cleans up behind me, but...It almost sounds like the judges wouldn't be trying to resolve the tensions between labor law and anti-trust law. They'd simply be clearing up the uncertainty around how labor law relating to the lockouts does or doesn't apply in this case. With no effect on anti-trust law. But your Q is a good one - what the violations be? Maybe he was referring to the period after the lockout ended? It doesn't sound like that though.

I'd think it would have to be the period after the lockout ended. Maybe the part the owners wouldn't like is the limit on how long the lockout is allowed to last. If they stick a 6 month limit on it, the owners probably wouldn't like it.ETA - I see Dodds posted the same thing above.

 

[renesauz]

I thought the bolded was pretty interesting in light of the judge's comments that neither side will like the ruling. Suspect that part may be right - and that the judges may rule that the owners can keep the lockout for six or twelve months to force the players back to the table, but that anti-trust damages will accrue in the meantime.

This ruling would also provide incentive for both sides to come to an agreement by imposing potentially heavy costs on both sides if they don't.

How can there be any anti-trust damages if there are no violations? What area would the owners be violating during a legally imposed lockout?

There's more than one issue here. According to one interpretation of the NLA, the NFL is free from court injunction for some period of time, and has some limited protection against anti-trust suits on matters which were signed off on in the last CBA.

That protection, however is temporary. Part of the issue in the courts is HOW TEMPORARY? The NFLPA contends that any protections end the second they decertify.

Either way, the NFL will eventually be subject to the full force of trust law (absent a new CBA). When/if that happens, it's not unreasonable to assume that somelimited past damages could be awarded.

Another interpretation is that there is no real protection from anti-trust laws EXCEPT that courts are barred from getting involved early when the dispute arises directly out of collective bargaining. Under this interpretation, the court lacks jurisdiction to enter an injunction against a lockout, but the trust suits remain immediately valid. Under this interpretation, the players could be awarded reasonable damages almost from the start. (Reasonable being a key term, nobody would expect the NFL to immediately and dramatically alter every aspect of business, but if this interpretation holds, the NFL would be expected to begin making moves towards that THIS summer.) Under this interpretation, the lockout would still be a collusive (anti-trust) action, and the players could sue over it and (eventually) be awarded damages, but the courts hands are temporarily tied.

A third interpretation, and the one put forward by the players, is that decertification immediately removes the dispute from the realm of labor law and place it squarely in the realm of trust law. IN this scenario, a lockout is illegal and can be removed by court order.

The problem with the third interpretation (if it is upheld) is that it effectively kills collective bargaining practices in pro sports. Sports unions will ALWAYS choose trust law over labor law to increase their leverage if the appeals court interprets this way. Much earlier in this thread I argued that if the NFLPA could turn a switch and threaten the NFL this way, than that was morally wrong and the laws needed revision. After a TON more research, and reading dozens of these breifs, I've come to believe that the laws are mostly OK, but just a little cloudy on HOW to switch between trust and labor law. I'm convinced (as much as a layman could be) that the injunction was in fact outside the courts jurisdiction, and that the NLA meant to prevent unions from using the tactic the NFLPA did. It seems that the NFL does enjoy some limited trust protection for some (unfortunately unspecified) period of time.

The problem lies in how much time. Here, the law is less than clear. According to some, it ends the minute labor negotiations end. To others, more time is warranted. The NFL argues that such time should be a full business cycle (for the NFL, a year).

It seems that the court is leaning towards the middle interpretation above. I'm not sure why anyone would think 6 months is adequate though. The law is unclear because every scenario/business would be differant...the idea of "one business cycle" makes more sense.

 

[Wadsworth]

If the court rules that the lockout can last for 6 months, doesn't that make the lockout almost useless as a leverage tool?

The players would know they will start getting game checks in September so there's not a lot of pressure. At that point I'm not sure what good the lockout would be doing the owners. If the NFL decided to leave the lockout in place there would be no free agency, no training camp and no preseason, but come September 11th they'd be writing check anyways.

 

[cobalt_27]

If the court rules that the lockout can last for 6 months, doesn't that make the lockout almost useless as a leverage tool? The players would know they will start getting game checks in September so there's not a lot of pressure. At that point I'm not sure what good the lockout would be doing the owners. If the NFL decided to leave the lockout in place there would be no free agency, no training camp and no preseason, but come September 11th they'd be writing check anyways.

You're absolutely right. Which is why the court is not going to do this. It would effectively erase the owners lockout privileges, and I think it's pretty clear they are not going to do this.

 

[Wadsworth]

If the court rules that the lockout can last for 6 months, doesn't that make the lockout almost useless as a leverage tool? The players would know they will start getting game checks in September so there's not a lot of pressure. At that point I'm not sure what good the lockout would be doing the owners. If the NFL decided to leave the lockout in place there would be no free agency, no training camp and no preseason, but come September 11th they'd be writing check anyways.

You're absolutely right. Which is why the court is not going to do this. It would effectively erase the owners lockout privileges, and I think it's pretty clear they are not going to do this.

True, but the owners have frequently cited rulings in more standard labor disputes as precedent in this specialize labor situation when it is to their benefit. It might seem hypocritical for them to turn around and say now say that the specialized situation of the NFL makes this type of ruling not an option. I could see the court ruling that your specialized model is not our concern, you are allowed the lockout for 6 months and if that happens to be bad timing for your negotiating leverage deal with it.