NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Football Critic = JuST CUz

So any arguments should be for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Football Critic]

do you really think her decision is gonna be based off whats right or wrong? It will totally be based off what groups she is trying to impress the most, like the organization that donates to her fellow collegues or for her chances to run in some other political field. Her decision will have zero to do with whats right, and be totally completely about a political decision. Do judges ever do the right thing in civil courts? hmmm

I've recently had occasion to do some research on the history of interracial marriage in America; it's clear that judges are a lot more likely to do the right thing than politicians.

To the above statement...What does that have to do with a Judge and her stance? your point makes zero sense, sorry.

Your question was "do judges ever do the right thing?" My answer is, a lot more often than politicians do, or corporations for that matter.

To suggest some judges arent crooked and some are not involved in the political aspect, leaves me wondering what country your living in and if you know what your talking about.

I'm certainly living in a country where people who don't know the difference between your (possessive) and you're (contraction of "you are") accuse others of ignorance.

I've nvr really been concerned with spellin, my pnt is made, and I luv how when someone else dnt have a nieve view, they are considered wrong or ignint. Lots of words spelled wrong but you still know what I'm sayin.Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh. I'm sure they make some right calls, but ask yourself if she is making the right call on tuesday.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

 

[Football Critic]

Ok, I get everyones point, but no one gets mine...

She should not even be hearing this case....and she is, thats how you know some politics are involved.

If she is not predisposed, why are all the media outlets and most of society in the NFL world assuming she is going to rule in favor of the players? Especially when most are on the side of the owners, like in this thread. We know they are still a union and this case should not even be in court, even the morons could see that.

Because poilitics no matter how cynical you think I am, are playing a role in this...it was even suggested by Florio on PFT, so I'm not the only one who sees it like this.

She could rule in favor of the owners, now that wont give us football, but it would protect other fan interests like the draft and free agency....but she wont, although I hope.

I love how most who wake up and turn on the news everyday to hear and see whats goin on in the world think my opinion is cynical or off base, lol.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The players were fine with the current CBA, is was the owners, not the players that opted out. So it wasn't about getting a raise, it's about getting a pay cut..

The salary cap in 2009 was $127m. The owners' offer to the players before they walked away was a package, if I'm not mistaken, that raised the salary cap to $141m in 2011 and increased to $161m by 2014. This was in addition to numerous other concessions in regard to health plans, practice limitations, among other things the players wanted. I think there is a legitimate beef the players would have that, under the terms of the previous CBA they had the potential to earn more than the $141-161 range based on what revenues were generated. In effect, it's possible that their potential earning power would be reduced. But, to call the owner's last offer a "pay cut" is a bit disingenuous.

The owners opted out of the previous CBA, the CBA that the players would have continued to play under.The other offers included many new stipulations, for which both sides have explained in their own way. "Disingenuous" would be to suggest the players started this, or that the owners were interested in giving them a fair raise in light of the other stipulations they wanted to impose.Maybe you can link the cap info you're providing.

 

[renesauz]

Just to very quickly verify....

WHY on earth do people continue to use "the owners opted out of the last CBA" as some sort of "proof" that the owners are at fault and wrong?

There are many good, solid arguments to make on the players side of things. This isn't one of them.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Just to very quickly verify....WHY on earth do people continue to use "the owners opted out of the last CBA" as some sort of "proof" that the owners are at fault and wrong?There are many good, solid arguments to make on the players side of things. This isn't one of them.

If the owners didn't opt out, there would be football this year.. The players were good with it, the owners weren't..And the fact that the owners were the ones that opted out in my case was pointed out because it contradicts Cobalt's assertion that the players started this because they wanted more of a raise than the owners were offering.The players were willing to continue to play under the previous CBA, (No raise).. Was the owners that opted out.

 

[roadkill1292]

Ok, I get everyones point, but no one gets mine...She should not even be hearing this case....and she is, thats how you know some politics are involved. If she is not predisposed, why are all the media outlets and most of society in the NFL world assuming she is going to rule in favor of the players? Especially when most are on the side of the owners, like in this thread. We know they are still a union and this case should not even be in court, even the morons could see that.Because poilitics no matter how cynical you think I am, are playing a role in this...it was even suggested by Florio on PFT, so I'm not the only one who sees it like this.She could rule in favor of the owners, now that wont give us football, but it would protect other fan interests like the draft and free agency....but she wont, although I hope.I love how most who wake up and turn on the news everyday to hear and see whats goin on in the world think my opinion is cynical or off base, lol.

I'm still not getting it. I'm gonna need a clarification on the politics at work here.Maybe most observers think the judge is going to rule in favor of the players because they have the strongest legal case? And it's not her job to protect the interests of the fans. They're not a party to the suits.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Ok, I get everyones point, but no one gets mine...She should not even be hearing this case....and she is, thats how you know some politics are involved. If she is not predisposed, why are all the media outlets and most of society in the NFL world assuming she is going to rule in favor of the players? Especially when most are on the side of the owners, like in this thread. We know they are still a union and this case should not even be in court, even the morons could see that.Because poilitics no matter how cynical you think I am, are playing a role in this...it was even suggested by Florio on PFT, so I'm not the only one who sees it like this.She could rule in favor of the owners, now that wont give us football, but it would protect other fan interests like the draft and free agency....but she wont, although I hope.I love how most who wake up and turn on the news everyday to hear and see whats goin on in the world think my opinion is cynical or off base, lol.

I'm still not getting it. I'm gonna need a clarification on the politics at work here.Maybe most observers think the judge is going to rule in favor of the players because they have the strongest legal case? And it's not her job to protect the interests of the fans. They're not a party to the suits.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

I agree with this. Here is the problem I have, however.When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player. Ok. Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer? It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool. If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible. (Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

 

[CalBear]

When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously,

You're starting with the wrong assumption. I guarantee you that if any other unionized workers were asked to take a pay cut because the business was supposedly losing money, they would demand proof. It doesn't come up very often because the vast majority of unionized shops are either government or public companies; in either of those cases, the books are already open.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously,

You're starting with the wrong assumption. I guarantee you that if any other unionized workers were asked to take a pay cut because the business was supposedly losing money, they would demand proof. It doesn't come up very often because the vast majority of unionized shops are either government or public companies ; in either of those cases, the books are already open.

Making the difference between the NFL and those even greater, imo. This is a very square peg being pounded into a very round hole.

 

[CalBear]

When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously,

You're starting with the wrong assumption. I guarantee you that if any other unionized workers were asked to take a pay cut because the business was supposedly losing money, they would demand proof. It doesn't come up very often because the vast majority of unionized shops are either government or public companies ; in either of those cases, the books are already open.

Making the difference between the NFL and those even greater, imo. This is a very square peg being pounded into a very round hole.

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not, office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously,

You're starting with the wrong assumption. I guarantee you that if any other unionized workers were asked to take a pay cut because the business was supposedly losing money, they would demand proof. It doesn't come up very often because the vast majority of unionized shops are either government or public companies ; in either of those cases, the books are already open.

Making the difference between the NFL and those even greater, imo. This is a very square peg being pounded into a very round hole.

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

 

[Mello]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

I agree with this. Here is the problem I have, however.When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player. Ok. Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer? It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool. If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible. (Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

I don't get your issue here. If either side doesn't agree to a CBA and the players stay decertified, then they are covered under normal labor laws just like any of us. It has nothing to do with them having some unique ability. The owners want to do things that normal business can't do though. The lockout being #1. No group of different businesses can get together and lockout every employee until they agree to lower wages. If you believe the NFL should be under different rules, then get Congress to grant them a full anti-trust exemption. Then they could lockout the players forever until they agree to whatever the owners want.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

I agree with this. Here is the problem I have, however.When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player. Ok. Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer? It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool. If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible. (Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

I don't get your issue here. If either side doesn't agree to a CBA and the players stay decertified, then they are covered under normal labor laws just like any of us. It has nothing to do with them having some unique ability. The owners want to do things that normal business can't do though. The lockout being #1. No group of different businesses can get together and lockout every employee until they agree to lower wages. If you believe the NFL should be under different rules, then get Congress to grant them a full anti-trust exemption. Then they could lockout the players forever until they agree to whatever the owners want.

When asked for concessions, the 'employees' are seeking entitlements (to the point of alleging that they are 'partners' with the ownership) that no other employee that I am aware of has. They are demanding detail in bookkeeping that no other employee (including those working for publicly traded companies) have access to. They are demanding line-item access to books. They justify this because they are 'different' from other employee bases. They are uniquely talented and non-fungible, in their opinion. They want to be treated DIFFERENTLY than all other known employment bases...until it comes to the application of labor laws. Then they wish to be treated the same.

 

[Mello]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

I agree with this. Here is the problem I have, however.When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player. Ok. Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer? It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool. If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible. (Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

I don't get your issue here. If either side doesn't agree to a CBA and the players stay decertified, then they are covered under normal labor laws just like any of us. It has nothing to do with them having some unique ability. The owners want to do things that normal business can't do though. The lockout being #1. No group of different businesses can get together and lockout every employee until they agree to lower wages. If you believe the NFL should be under different rules, then get Congress to grant them a full anti-trust exemption. Then they could lockout the players forever until they agree to whatever the owners want.

When asked for concessions, the 'employees' are seeking entitlements (to the point of alleging that they are 'partners' with the ownership) that no other employee that I am aware of has. They are demanding detail in bookkeeping that no other employee (including those working for publicly traded companies) have access to. They are demanding line-item access to books. They justify this because they are 'different' from other employee bases. They are uniquely talented and non-fungible, in their opinion. They want to be treated DIFFERENTLY than all other known employment bases...until it comes to the application of labor laws. Then they wish to be treated the same.

You can ask for this from your employer too if you want. There is no difference here. Your company will laugh in your face. The NFL has tried too. Difference is, your employer is likely complying with anti-trust laws. So you won't win a suit against them when they don't give over what they want. The NFL is violating those laws as soon as the union chooses to decertify.

 

[CalBear]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

Still wrong. People will grouse but there will be no such mutiny. I have lived it.

 

[Mello]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

But, they will say that revenue or profits or down or something along those lines. Same as the NFL explaining increased cost of doing business. The players went past that and requested line by line financial numbers for 10 years. Most businesses aren't going to provide that and will simply impose the cut or clear out their current employees over time and replace them with cheaper new ones. The only difference here is that Ernst & Young is compliant with anti-trust regulations. These workers can't win a suit based on that. If the workers don't like their situation, they are free to quit and find employment with another company. The players are not completely free to do that when their contracts expire depending on how many years they have and the other nuances of the previous CBA which are likely illegal now that the players have chosen to decertify.

 

[Hoosier16]

The NFL is violating those laws as soon as the union chooses to decertify.

Only once the lockout is lifted and only if the NFL at that point tries to restrict FA.

 

[Hoosier16]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

 

[Mello]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

These differences are completely irrelevant legally. The players didn't agree with the owners' CBA offers and chose to challenge the NFL in court rather to gain leverage to negotiate a more favorable CBA.

 

[Ksquared]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

I agree with this. Here is the problem I have, however.When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player. Ok. Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer? It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool. If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible. (Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

Actually great posting. I have been trying to articulate this position for 2 months, but this is my feelings in a nutshell. And one last thing on the "Owners" opting out. Go back and look at the quotes after the previous agreement was signed. The 2 yr opt out was what the owners required to agree to sign the last agreement in large part due to the pressures the Owners feel now. How could you stop the game of football was being expressed everywhere. Well the evaluation period by these owners (not all, but many) came to agreement the last CBA was not viable for their franchises going forward. I may have even wrote that the owners were going to opt out within a month of that agreement, I believe that is when several owners started raising concerns. I know R Wilson even stated they were not allowed time to even read the whole agreement due to the pressure of the deadline so they would not miss any football. This was more of a 2 year trial that was attempted and the owners have decided it would not work going forward. Of course the players want to keep playing under the old agreement, that alone tells you which side feels they got the best of it. Since when has a labor group been quite willing to stay "pat" with the financial agreement they are under?

 

[Mello]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

I agree with this. Here is the problem I have, however.When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player. Ok. Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer? It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool. If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible. (Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

Actually great posting. I have been trying to articulate this position for 2 months, but this is my feelings in a nutshell. And one last thing on the "Owners" opting out. Go back and look at the quotes after the previous agreement was signed. The 2 yr opt out was what the owners required to agree to sign the last agreement in large part due to the pressures the Owners feel now. How could you stop the game of football was being expressed everywhere. Well the evaluation period by these owners (not all, but many) came to agreement the last CBA was not viable for their franchises going forward. I may have even wrote that the owners were going to opt out within a month of that agreement, I believe that is when several owners started raising concerns. I know R Wilson even stated they were not allowed time to even read the whole agreement due to the pressure of the deadline so they would not miss any football. This was more of a 2 year trial that was attempted and the owners have decided it would not work going forward. Of course the players want to keep playing under the old agreement, that alone tells you which side feels they got the best of it. Since when has a labor group been quite willing to stay "pat" with the financial agreement they are under?

Sure, the players like the previous deal better than the owners. I don't really care about how much money billionaires are making though. I also don't trust the owners that they really needed (not want, need) a new CBA. I think there was a big disagreement between the various owners on how their share of the money should be split. Rather than agree amongst themselves, they chose to grab money from the players to increase their part of the pie. Their greed has put the 2011 season in jeopardy.When I see an NFL team go bankrupt or an owner have to sale a team solely based on the cost of running the franchise and not other failed financial ventures, then I'll start to believe the owners' story.

 

[Hoosier16]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

These differences are completely irrelevant legally. The players didn't agree with the owners' CBA offers and chose to challenge the NFL in court rather to gain leverage to negotiate a more favorable CBA.

I understand. The comparison was made to a company in the private sector. There is nothing illegal about asking an employee to accept a pay cut or to accept no raise. But, they are entirely different offers to an employee with entirely different responses.

 

[Ksquared]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

These differences are completely irrelevant legally. The players didn't agree with the owners' CBA offers and chose to challenge the NFL in court rather to gain leverage to negotiate a more favorable CBA.

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate a set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

 

[Mello]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

These differences are completely irrelevant legally. The players didn't agree with the owners' CBA offers and chose to challenge the NFL in court rather to gain leverage to negotiate a more favorable CBA.

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate an set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

Your exactly right. Which is why it's in the best interest of the owners to give up this fight now and lobby Congress to give them a full anti-trust exemption.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

These differences are completely irrelevant legally. The players didn't agree with the owners' CBA offers and chose to challenge the NFL in court rather to gain leverage to negotiate a more favorable CBA.

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate an set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

I think the main thing that went wrong was the ruling in American Needle, and while it was limited in its application, if the same logic were extrapolated and applied to all aspects of competition in the NFL, then we could certainly be looking at something like this.Personally, I think a legislated solution is the best way around it. Unless the court of appeals has the balls to recognize the differences.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

These differences are completely irrelevant legally. The players didn't agree with the owners' CBA offers and chose to challenge the NFL in court rather to gain leverage to negotiate a more favorable CBA.

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate an set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

Your exactly right. Which is why it's in the best interest of the owners to give up this fight now and lobby Congress to give them a full anti-trust exemption.

I agree with the second half of your statement. The 'giving up' part, I'm not so sure about. Once the owners get out of Minnesota they may find the courts a little more favorable.

 

[Hoosier16]

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate an set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

I don't see any advantage gained by a player in challenging any scheduling issue, if there is even an issue. I think it would be tough to prove any damages. With roster sizes, there isn't any reason for the owners to put a restriction on those. No restriction, no issue. The only issue will be with the 2012 draft. But then you also have to believe it will last that long. I think one season (or just a FA period) without a minimum salary will bring the players back to the table willing to listen to offers.

 

[Ksquared]

It's not a square peg at all. As management, if you're asking for concessions from your workers, you need to be able to justify them. Union or not , office workers, steel workers, bankers or football players, the principle is the same.

This is patently untrue.

No, it's not. If you're a private employer--say, Ernst & Young--and you come to your accountants and tell them that you're cutting their pay, they are going to want to know why. If you can't explain--or if your explanation is "we're not making as much profit as we want to"--you'll have a mutiny on your hands. All your good people will bolt. It's stupid business no matter what the business is.

There is a huge difference in asking for a pay cut and giving a lesser (or no) raise. The only players who have been asked (told) to take a pay cut are the rookies.In an NFL without a CBA, the key employees won't be paid less. It's the non-key, replaceable employees that will be forced to take the pay cut.

These differences are completely irrelevant legally. The players didn't agree with the owners' CBA offers and chose to challenge the NFL in court rather to gain leverage to negotiate a more favorable CBA.

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate an set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

Your exactly right. Which is why it's in the best interest of the owners to give up this fight now and lobby Congress to give them a full anti-trust exemption.

I agree with the second half of your statement. The 'giving up' part, I'm not so sure about. Once the owners get out of Minnesota they may find the courts a little more favorable.

New to the political landscape? I agree with what both of you are saying, but I think the owner's are ready to run this bus off a cliff to get enough political ammo to be able to get some more partial anti-trust exemptions. I see very few Democrats giving any kind of exemption to any ownership group or lose all their Union support (especially the $$), unless what we are left with is an absolute mess like I described above. Maybe the Appeals Court will make some corrections/recognition of the differences of a competitive professional sports league and a regular business, but I am not a big fan of the Judiciary making "law" from the bench anyway. The best solution would be for Congress to expand the anti-trust exemptions in these professional leagues, but I only see this happening if the league structure becomes a train wreck.What has become very clear in this process is the "hardline" labor lawyers have taken control of the NFLPA and frankly this tactic (decertify whenever the NFLPA does not get everything they want) will be a giant anvil around ownership's neck for all future negotiations. And frankly, I am not sure why the NFLPA would ever negotiate in the future. Basically they and the owner's know the success of their league is illegal according to anti-trust legislation. I think the NFLPA has always had the leverage once they convinced the rank and file to go the judicial route. The funny thing is the path they are going down will make the elite player (top 5% richer, the lawyers and agents much richer, and the bottom 50% of the players much poorer). In some perverse way I almost want to see this train wreck - some for the humor of watching all the chaos and some for the possibility that Congress might get involved (this always scares me) to adjust the anti trust legislation.

 

[Ksquared]

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate an set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

I don't see any advantage gained by a player in challenging any scheduling issue, if there is even an issue. I think it would be tough to prove any damages. With roster sizes, there isn't any reason for the owners to put a restriction on those. No restriction, no issue. The only issue will be with the 2012 draft. But then you also have to believe it will last that long. I think one season (or just a FA period) without a minimum salary will bring the players back to the table willing to listen to offers.

The scheduling issues are more any change from the status quo. Any change that could reduce the "exposure" to the locations that would allow a player more opportunity to get $$ for endorsements could be challenged. As to the roster sizes having no restrictions!!! You have no problem with Snyder or some other owner hiring 125 players for the season? Cost a lot, but just keep running bodies out there. Have 7-8 QBs, Kickers, etc. Reduces the number of potential players for other teams to use as well as have a lot of backup players for injury issues. Imagine playing in a fantasy football league for a minute with no max number of players on a team....One other area that no one seems to be discussing, but I can see some players being picked up out of HS or Frosh in College and put into the 100+ rosters that NFL teams have. The NFL team could train them in their system. Lots of potential issues with all of this, but that is where we are potentially headed with the lawyers running everything now.

 

[CalBear]

There's zero chance that the NFL will get any kind of anti-trust exemption through legislation. And it's ludicrous to suggest that such an exemption would be in the national interest.

 

[Hoosier16]

I think the NFLPA has always had the leverage once they convinced the rank and file to go the judicial route. The funny thing is the path they are going down will make the elite player (top 5% richer, the lawyers and agents much richer, and the bottom 50% of the players much poorer). I some perverse way I almost want to see this train wreck - some for the humor of watching all the chaos and some for the possibility that Congress might get involved (this always scares me) to adjust the anti trust legislation.

I agree completely with you here. So, why do you think that rank and file will continue with the judicial route? That 50% (and maybe half of your remaining 45%) has power and can certainly reform and agree to a new CBA.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

There's zero chance that the NFL will get any kind of anti-trust exemption through legislation. And it's ludicrous to suggest that such an exemption would be in the national interest.

Is this the standard? I'm not aware if it is.If legislators look at and recognize that a professional sports league, by its very operation, is different from other businesses and that different rules should apply, then I see no reason why they can't/shouldn't make such legislation. If there is a 'best interest of the country' standard for such exemption, then I apologize, I'm just not aware of it.

That said, Congress treats different industries differently every day, either by more or less regulation.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I think the NFLPA has always had the leverage once they convinced the rank and file to go the judicial route. The funny thing is the path they are going down will make the elite player (top 5% richer, the lawyers and agents much richer, and the bottom 50% of the players much poorer). I some perverse way I almost want to see this train wreck - some for the humor of watching all the chaos and some for the possibility that Congress might get involved (this always scares me) to adjust the anti trust legislation.

I agree completely with you here. So, why do you think that rank and file will continue with the judicial route? That 50% (and maybe half of your remaining 45%) has power and can certainly reform and agree to a new CBA.

This is likely why we've heard rumbling about another group of lawyers representing a different strata of professional. They are uncomfortable with the game of chicken that the players' attorneys are currently taking, understanding that this could have a very negative impact on them if the owner's don't fold.

 

[Hoosier16]

But this goes to the point Boxer is making. The NFL and other professional leagues are not the same as any other business, but the Unions are using the same laws. First I want the NFL to stay basically the way it is without the "Wild Wild West" that we may be looking at. I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate an set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules? McDonalds, Burger King, etc do not get together and decide how much they will pay, how many employees they will hire, how many hours each employee will work, etc. Who determines these restrictions - the individual companies separately and of course our government. You may laugh at these potential issues, but unless someone can explain how these are not anti-trust violations I see continued court cases in to the future being brought by lawyers and an "affected" party. And the demise of the NFL as we have known it.

I don't see any advantage gained by a player in challenging any scheduling issue, if there is even an issue. I think it would be tough to prove any damages. With roster sizes, there isn't any reason for the owners to put a restriction on those. No restriction, no issue. The only issue will be with the 2012 draft. But then you also have to believe it will last that long. I think one season (or just a FA period) without a minimum salary will bring the players back to the table willing to listen to offers.

The scheduling issues are more any change from the status quo. Any change that could reduce the "exposure" to the locations that would allow a player more opportunity to get $ for endorsements could be challenged.

When I sign a contract with an employer, I have no say on where they send me. Many people work in different cities every week and have absolutely no input. The schedule is up to the employer.

As to the roster sizes having no restrictions!!! You have no problem with Snyder or some other owner hiring 125 players for the season? Cost a lot, but just keep running bodies out there. Have 7-8 QBs, Kickers, etc. Reduces the number of potential players for other teams to use as well as have a lot of backup players for injury issues. Imagine playing in a fantasy football league for a minute with no max number of players on a team....

It certainly could happen but I think owners would do the minimum rather than the maximum.

One other area that no one seems to be discussing, but I can see some players being picked up out of HS or Frosh in College and put into the 100+ rosters that NFL teams have. The NFL team could train them in their system. Lots of potential issues with all of this, but that is where we are potentially headed with the lawyers running everything now.

That would be a big problem, but only if a new CBA isn't agreed upon during that 1st year. There will be far more players unhappy with the new conditions.

 

[CalBear]

There's zero chance that the NFL will get any kind of anti-trust exemption through legislation. And it's ludicrous to suggest that such an exemption would be in the national interest.

Is this the standard? I'm not aware if it is.If legislators look at and recognize that a professional sports league, by its very operation, is different from other businesses and that different rules should apply, then I see no reason why they can't/shouldn't make such legislation. If there is a 'best interest of the country' standard for such exemption, then I apologize, I'm just not aware of it.

That said, Congress treats different industries differently every day, either by more or less regulation.

Congress may or may not have the right to grant an anti-trust exemption, but the fact is that they won't. They are not required to do things which are in the national interest, true, but if you're writing legislation to undermine anti-trust laws (which were adopted in the national interest), you'd better have a good reason. And that reason can't be "a lot of people really like the NFL draft" or "we don't like the way the Yankees get all the expensive free agents."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

She should not even be hearing this case....and she is, thats how you know some politics are involved.

Why shouldn't she be hearing this case?

If she is not predisposed, why are all the media outlets and most of society in the NFL world assuming she is going to rule in favor of the players?

Because the outcome isn't random. The side that has the law in its favor usually wins; and in this case, the players seem to have the law in their favor. In order for the lockout to be upheld, the owners will have to show that the NFLPA's decertification was a sham. And "sham" doesn't means "something done for strategic advantage." In the cases I've read where a court found a decertification to be a sham, it was because the union continued to accept membership dues after the decertification date — stuff like that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player.

The NFL isn't unique in this regard. I know of many situations where key employees are paid based on the revenues or profits of the company (or their division of it); and in every such case, the employee has a right to an accounting of the books.

Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer?

The generally applicable law is applied to the NFL like it is applied to every other industry that isn't specifically exempted. If Congress wants to create an exemption, fine. Courts aren't really free to make up their own. (Except for Justice Holmes.)

It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool.

This game of chicken isn't unique to sports. It can happen in any unionized workforce. It's an effect of replacing an open market with collective bargaining.

If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Are you suggesting that the players should voluntarily accept less money (and other lesser terms) than they can freely negotiate in the context of the current legal environment?I don't know why the players have any more responsibility to do that than the owners do. In fact, neither should. They should both get all they can.

Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

When I point out that A and B are similar in certain relevant respects, I do not mean to imply that they are identical in all respects. Of course.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

There's zero chance that the NFL will get any kind of anti-trust exemption through legislation. And it's ludicrous to suggest that such an exemption would be in the national interest.

Is this the standard? I'm not aware if it is.If legislators look at and recognize that a professional sports league, by its very operation, is different from other businesses and that different rules should apply, then I see no reason why they can't/shouldn't make such legislation. If there is a 'best interest of the country' standard for such exemption, then I apologize, I'm just not aware of it.

That said, Congress treats different industries differently every day, either by more or less regulation.

Congress may or may not have the right to grant an anti-trust exemption, but the fact is that they won't. They are not required to do things which are in the national interest, true, but if you're writing legislation to undermine anti-trust laws (which were adopted in the national interest), you'd better have a good reason. And that reason can't be "a lot of people really like the NFL draft" or "we don't like the way the Yankees get all the expensive free agents."

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created.

I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't get your issue here. If either side doesn't agree to a CBA and the players stay decertified, then they are covered under normal labor laws just like any of us. It has nothing to do with them having some unique ability. The owners want to do things that normal business can't do though. The lockout being #1. No group of different businesses can get together and lockout every employee until they agree to lower wages. If you believe the NFL should be under different rules, then get Congress to grant them a full anti-trust exemption. Then they could lockout the players forever until they agree to whatever the owners want.

When asked for concessions, the 'employees' are seeking entitlements (to the point of alleging that they are 'partners' with the ownership) that no other employee that I am aware of has. They are demanding detail in bookkeeping that no other employee (including those working for publicly traded companies) have access to. They are demanding line-item access to books. They justify this because they are 'different' from other employee bases. They are uniquely talented and non-fungible, in their opinion. They want to be treated DIFFERENTLY than all other known employment bases...until it comes to the application of labor laws. Then they wish to be treated the same.

Anyone can ask for whatever he wants. It's fairly common for certain employees to be paid based on an accounting of various revenues or profits; and to have access to the books in those cases. If the employers don't want to open the books, then they can make some other offer, the players will counter-offer, and the process will continue until the parties can come to an agreement.There's nothing all that unusual in any of this.

 

[Ksquared]

There's zero chance that the NFL will get any kind of anti-trust exemption through legislation. And it's ludicrous to suggest that such an exemption would be in the national interest.

Is this the standard? I'm not aware if it is.If legislators look at and recognize that a professional sports league, by its very operation, is different from other businesses and that different rules should apply, then I see no reason why they can't/shouldn't make such legislation. If there is a 'best interest of the country' standard for such exemption, then I apologize, I'm just not aware of it.

That said, Congress treats different industries differently every day, either by more or less regulation.

Congress may or may not have the right to grant an anti-trust exemption, but the fact is that they won't. They are not required to do things which are in the national interest, true, but if you're writing legislation to undermine anti-trust laws (which were adopted in the national interest), you'd better have a good reason. And that reason can't be "a lot of people really like the NFL draft" or "we don't like the way the Yankees get all the expensive free agents."

First the whole decision in the "Needle" case as I understand was the lack of anti-trust exemption for the NFL and that Congress was the only branch that had the power to enact this, not the courts. So Congress certainly has the right to amend anti-trust rules for certain sectors or completely rewrite them as a whole, since they were the body that created them. And national interest has little to do with most of what Congress passes anymore. They may claim it, but reality seems to put this way down the list of reasons legislation gets enacted.But I see the argument getting away from the point Boxer and I have been making - the NFLPA wants to be treated "differently" than other industries because of the reasons stated earlier. But they also want to use the labor laws that were enacted for those that individually could not represent themselves against ownership (ie as normal labor/businesses use). Thus giving said group enough power to enact change in their labor situation. The NFLPA already is in the unique position that they represent the "group" and yet all those individuals have power (some to more degree than others) to represent themselves vs ownership (ie, individually negotiated contracts). They want it both ways, either claim you are same as other industries and use the laws created for them. Or claim you are a different industry and should be treated differently. Thus not using the "normal labor/business" labor laws.

 

[Ksquared]

I don't get your issue here. If either side doesn't agree to a CBA and the players stay decertified, then they are covered under normal labor laws just like any of us. It has nothing to do with them having some unique ability. The owners want to do things that normal business can't do though. The lockout being #1. No group of different businesses can get together and lockout every employee until they agree to lower wages. If you believe the NFL should be under different rules, then get Congress to grant them a full anti-trust exemption. Then they could lockout the players forever until they agree to whatever the owners want.

When asked for concessions, the 'employees' are seeking entitlements (to the point of alleging that they are 'partners' with the ownership) that no other employee that I am aware of has. They are demanding detail in bookkeeping that no other employee (including those working for publicly traded companies) have access to. They are demanding line-item access to books. They justify this because they are 'different' from other employee bases. They are uniquely talented and non-fungible, in their opinion. They want to be treated DIFFERENTLY than all other known employment bases...until it comes to the application of labor laws. Then they wish to be treated the same.

Anyone can ask for whatever he wants. It's fairly common for certain employees to be paid based on an accounting of various revenues or profits; and to have access to the books in those cases. If the employers don't want to open the books, then they can make some other offer, the players will counter-offer, and the process will continue until the parties can come to an agreement.There's nothing all that unusual in any of this.

I believe the audited books that the NFLPA get already include the standard numbers used in these situations. The NFLPA want to go to a line by line review of the individual franchises and for 10 years at that.

 

[CalBear]

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created.

I don't think you can argue that the NFL has been unable to grow successfully under the existing laws.

I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

The draft, salary caps, and restrictions on free agency all directly undermine anti-trust law. And frankly, there's no good reason why the NFL should be able to collude in those ways, absent an agreement with the people who are affected by the collusion.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player.

The NFL isn't unique in this regard. I know of many situations where key employees are paid based on the revenues or profits of the company (or their division of it); and in every such case, the employee has a right to an accounting of the books.I don't know of any circumstance where the entire union employment base has asked for 10 years itemized audited financial statements from all employers in order to question particular spending. If Drew Brees wants to ask the Saints to share the books with him, he can ask and they can decide whether or not to do so. That's really more of a comparable issue to which you are referring.

Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer?

The generally applicable law is applied to the NFL like it is applied to every other industry that isn't specifically exempted. If Congress wants to create an exemption, fine. Courts aren't really free to make up their own. (Except for Justice Holmes.)Discussed further in thread. And I disagree that the judges don't have some degree of leeway in interpretation and application of the law.

It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool.

This game of chicken isn't unique to sports. It can happen in any unionized workforce. It's an effect of replacing an open market with collective bargaining.It is an unusual game of chicken, however, in that the very thing the players are threatening is a result they don't actually WANT. They want the CBA as much as the owners, just on more favorable terms. I just wonder what will happen if this dog actually catches the car its chasing. To me its irresponsible of both sides to have abandoned the mediation process and gone to the litigation route. But maybe that's where BOTH parties want to be. I don't know.

If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Are you suggesting that the players should voluntarily accept less money (and other lesser terms) than they can freely negotiate in the context of the current legal environment?I don't know why the players have any more responsibility to do that than the owners do. In fact, neither should. They should both get all they can.See above.

Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

When I point out that A and B are similar in certain relevant respects, I do not mean to imply that they are identical in all respects. Of course.

Fair enough. I contend that there is NO comparable business model and that until some recognition of that fact is made, this elaborate dance will continue with the (longshot, I suppose) downside that neither party wants if neither party blinks.

 

[CalBear]

But I see the argument getting away from the point Boxer and I have been making - the NFLPA wants to be treated "differently" than other industries because of the reasons stated earlier. But they also want to use the labor laws that were enacted for those that individually could not represent themselves against ownership (ie as normal labor/businesses use). Thus giving said group enough power to enact change in their labor situation. The NFLPA already is in the unique position that they represent the "group" and yet all those individuals have power (some to more degree than others) to represent themselves vs ownership (ie, individually negotiated contracts). They want it both ways, either claim you are same as other industries and use the laws created for them. Or claim you are a different industry and should be treated differently. Thus not using the "normal labor/business" labor laws.

I don't see how the NFLPA is asking to be treated differently than other industries. They had a CBA which, like most contracts, clearly defined who retained which rights and what the rules for compensation would be. Any union in any industry can negotiate a CBA. Now that the owners opted out of the CBA, they are subject to labor laws. Previously the union had waived their rights to various types of labor protections because they felt the resulting CBA was, on balance, a good deal for them. Again, this is 100% standard business practice and exactly the kind of negotiation which occurs with unions all the time.

 

[roarlions]

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created. I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

Do you think Congress would ask the same questions as the NFLPA when considering such a request from the NFL? That is, the NFL seems to have fared very well under the current laws and the application of those laws. Why is it necessary to suddenly change the laws that the league has been operating under for years? What is the proof that the changes are necessary? Is this the only solution for correcting any problems the league may be encountering? Those are but a few that I would want answers to if I was responsible for determining whether to grant some kind of exemption for the NFL. And if it is granted for the NFL, what about all of the other professional sports leagues?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

But I see the argument getting away from the point Boxer and I have been making - the NFLPA wants to be treated "differently" than other industries because of the reasons stated earlier. But they also want to use the labor laws that were enacted for those that individually could not represent themselves against ownership (ie as normal labor/businesses use). Thus giving said group enough power to enact change in their labor situation. The NFLPA already is in the unique position that they represent the "group" and yet all those individuals have power (some to more degree than others) to represent themselves vs ownership (ie, individually negotiated contracts). They want it both ways, either claim you are same as other industries and use the laws created for them. Or claim you are a different industry and should be treated differently. Thus not using the "normal labor/business" labor laws.

I don't see how the NFLPA is asking to be treated differently than other industries. They had a CBA which, like most contracts, clearly defined who retained which rights and what the rules for compensation would be. Any union in any industry can negotiate a CBA. Now that the owners opted out of the CBA, they are subject to labor laws. Previously the union had waived their rights to various types of labor protections because they felt the resulting CBA was, on balance, a good deal for them. Again, this is 100% standard business practice and exactly the kind of negotiation which occurs with unions all the time.

Well, considering you're in Berkeley, CA, I'm certain there is no way we will ever be agreeing on labor issues. :grossgeneralizationborneoutinthread:But at least you present your argument well.