NFLPA officially decertifies (2 Viewers)

[BassNBrew]

So how does a league broken up by anti-trust issues even go about creating a schedule?

Seems like the NFL needs to form a single company and implement a salary structure much like Microsoft would.

MLS Soccer does something like this I think. It does seem stupid that the NFL bids against the NFL pushing salaries higher and higher. But do you really thing the big market teams would ever agree to something like this?

They could create an arrangement where each team was a wholly owned subsidiary of the league, but where the person in charge of the subsidiary (Jerry Jones, e.g.) had a compensation package tied into revenue they brought in that would mimic the current incentives for 32 separately owned organizations. The only problems with this structure that I can see are 1: potential Department of Justice denial of this reorganization as the formation of a monopoly; and 2: the perception of the teams no longer competing against each other leading to the possibility of "fixing" the game results.

One of my law professors thought #2 was a very big deal, but I disagreed. People still follow MLS and root for their teams, even though it is just one organization.

Plus the players could still play for the CFL or pursue other work. It wouldn't be anymore of a monoply than e-bay or Microsoft.

Microsoft wasn't a very good example.

We'll just agree to disagree. http://www.tuaw.com/2009/01/02/apple-market-share-tops-10-windows-share-lowest-since-tracking/

 

[BassNBrew]

If we got to the point of this thing canceling a season, you can bet there WOULD spring a viable alternative league in this country and fast from that pool of available talent. And thats where things get interesting. 4.4. vs. 4.5 guys and the relative skill IS noticable. Its why the XFL failed after a HUGE ratings start. The quality of the ball STUNK. College is the worst example to use regarding player loyalty. Its entirely school/coach driven due to the turnover. As for why there's never been a viable alternative to the NFL, the market simply has been served by what's existed. But I would also submit, leagues have also all made the mistake of trying to grow too fast too soon. But tell me this, if you have Dave Ragone quarterbacking for the New England Patriots versus Tom Brady quarterbacking for the Boston Stranglers in the 2012 season opener, I don't think you'll find the number of laundry rooters you expect.

If Brady is playing in a 25,000 seat dump and not on network TV then plenty of people will be rooting for Ragone. I agree with your statement about the other leagues attemtping to grow too fast. That doesn't work when you don't have the capital availabe that the current owners/league has amassed and brought to the table.How many Kurt Warners are out there? Excluding that argument, half the league could be replaced with talent not playing with zero drop off. There are thousands that didn't catch the right break or have the pedigree to get into the league. In some cases catching the right coaching can make or break a players career.

 

[Orange Crush]

So how does a league broken up by anti-trust issues even go about creating a schedule?

Seems like the NFL needs to form a single company and implement a salary structure much like Microsoft would.

MLS Soccer does something like this I think. It does seem stupid that the NFL bids against the NFL pushing salaries higher and higher. But do you really thing the big market teams would ever agree to something like this?

They could create an arrangement where each team was a wholly owned subsidiary of the league, but where the person in charge of the subsidiary (Jerry Jones, e.g.) had a compensation package tied into revenue they brought in that would mimic the current incentives for 32 separately owned organizations. The only problems with this structure that I can see are 1: potential Department of Justice denial of this reorganization as the formation of a monopoly; and 2: the perception of the teams no longer competing against each other leading to the possibility of "fixing" the game results.

One of my law professors thought #2 was a very big deal, but I disagreed. People still follow MLS and root for their teams, even though it is just one organization.

Plus the players could still play for the CFL or pursue other work. It wouldn't be anymore of a monoply than e-bay or Microsoft.

Microsoft wasn't a very good example.

We'll just agree to disagree. http://www.tuaw.com/...since-tracking/

My point was that the NFL would have to get past DOJ scrutiny to pull of a 32 to 1 consolidation. Therefore Microsoft wasn't a good example because they have received plenty of DOJ scrutiny,Even taking into account the UFL and CFL, the NFL dominates the market of professional football to such an extent that the DOJ could still determine that the conglomeration should not be allowed for market purposes.

 

[Choke]

Even taking into account the UFL and CFL, the NFL dominates the market of professional football to such an extent that the DOJ could still determine that the conglomeration should not be allowed for market purposes.

Those two dont even register, the CFL doesnt have a single American team and vice-versa for the NFL.

 

[Smack Tripper]

If we got to the point of this thing canceling a season, you can bet there WOULD spring a viable alternative league in this country and fast from that pool of available talent. And thats where things get interesting. 4.4. vs. 4.5 guys and the relative skill IS noticable. Its why the XFL failed after a HUGE ratings start. The quality of the ball STUNK. College is the worst example to use regarding player loyalty. Its entirely school/coach driven due to the turnover. As for why there's never been a viable alternative to the NFL, the market simply has been served by what's existed. But I would also submit, leagues have also all made the mistake of trying to grow too fast too soon. But tell me this, if you have Dave Ragone quarterbacking for the New England Patriots versus Tom Brady quarterbacking for the Boston Stranglers in the 2012 season opener, I don't think you'll find the number of laundry rooters you expect.

If Brady is playing in a 25,000 seat dump and not on network TV then plenty of people will be rooting for Ragone. I agree with your statement about the other leagues attemtping to grow too fast. That doesn't work when you don't have the capital availabe that the current owners/league has amassed and brought to the table.How many Kurt Warners are out there? Excluding that argument, half the league could be replaced with talent not playing with zero drop off. There are thousands that didn't catch the right break or have the pedigree to get into the league. In some cases catching the right coaching can make or break a players career.

Well, we're arguing in circles somewhat, extrapolating unlikely hypotheticals, but it does speak to the player value. And you can bet, what we are discussing is NOT something the NFL wants the least bit of momentum to get behind.But considering things... If you stuck to football hotbeds and/or underserved markets and promised players, I don't know, 80 percent of profit outside of operational costs as an initial model, or crafted some mode of player ownership for the league and did a 20 team league of:New YorkDallasDCPhilyLAOrlandoBirminghamHoustonSeattleTorontoBostonPittsburghClevelandMilwaulkeeChicagoPortland/SeattleDenverKansas CityOakland/San FranAnd then were able to through a smaller talent pool of available guys, see a Drew Brees throwing to Andre Johnson, or put Polamalu and Revis in the same secondary lets say, and then sprinkle in your Grudens, Cowhers, Billicks and other high profile coaches on the sidelines and maybe you get Madden out there announcing. In a very quick time, you've established a very visible assemblage of people. I don't doubt there are folks brighter than I drafting plans for just such a venture. Drafting plans doesn't mean committing cash, but boy if you struck when the iron was hot, AND were able to make a power play on the "salary capped" rookies coming out in the draft, the NFL suddenly has a big problem on his its hands.

 

[J Andersson]

... I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I think this every serious football fans greatest fear.

then alot of people will top caring just like baseball

I agree 100 %. Salary cap, draft format and other rules leading to parity is what makes this an interesting sport.I think that will be the deciding factor if I'll follow the NFL from here on out (and I'm a crazy European fan that anually makes trips to Boston and London for boatloads of money to follow this game live, so I would deem myself to be pretty interested in football). If there will be a fight between the richest clubs every single year I'll be disinterested in no-time.Might as well follow another sport where parity (or at least the intention of creating it) is not the case.

 

[Chadstroma]

... I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I think this every serious football fans greatest fear.

Please don't turn the NFL into the NBA or MLB. I use to love both basketball and baseball.... now I don't care, very rarely watch on tv (including playoffs), and only go to live games once in a while because it is something to do and not really because I want to see the sport.

 

[David Dodds]

Antitrust lawsuit alleges that NFL has waived "sham" defense to decertification

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/antitrust-lawsuit-alleges-that-nfl-has-waived-sham-defense-to-decertification/

Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league "insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days." To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, "if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration," the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was "a sham or otherwise ineffective."

In other words, if the players' allegations are accurate, the NFL can't use the "sham" silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players' lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we'll have football in 2011.

 

[Saints-Man]

... Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder want to have teams better than the rest of the league. Parity be damned.... If the owners really want to save football, then just agree to play out the last two years of the deal they nearly unanimously loved when they signed it and continue to work towards a real deal when the first one should have expired. Else take a chance in courts where the game we love is surely the loser.

First of all, thanks OC for the numbers. You seem to be quite on top of this and I trust your guesses over other people's facts. I think the NFLPA would bring a lot of people to their side if they just explained the drop in salary cap figures in terms of dollars instead of the percentages and the exemptions. Enough of us are bombarded with these secondary numbers(the % and the exemption money) to know they can be manipulated to suit either end. As I posted earlier, I was actually blaming both equally, but how you explained in those raw money terms I lean more to the players side now. I still think they are focusing only on money, which is certainly an important issue, but it should not be the only issue.DD, now that OC has posted the raw numbers, it has swayed my thoughts on this matter. And your point that the owners should have just played out this contract as opposed to the path they chose I think is a very strong persuasive argument, and one that tilts me further in the direction of the players. The NFLPA should hire you two to explain this situation to the fans more clearly.I had to leave in the blurb about Jones & Snyder...for if this game as we know it ceases to be they will be the metaphorical generals with the most blood on their hands. It is their greed that has unfortunately influenced other owners and initiated the change in this game from sport to entertainment since each arrived in the league. I would love for neither the Cowboys or the Redskins to ever make the Super Bowl again as long as these two people are their owners.Thanks to you both for your posts.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

... I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I think this every serious football fans greatest fear.

Please don't turn the NFL into the NBA or MLB. I use to love both basketball and baseball.... now I don't care, very rarely watch on tv (including playoffs), and only go to live games once in a while because it is something to do and not really because I want to see the sport.

The parity argument is nonsense. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thehotstoneleague/2014124244_mlb_vs_nfl_lets_get_this_parit.htmlIt's cool if you no longer like baseball (or even if you never cared for it). Different strokes and all. But football is not some unique sport that offers an unprecedented level of parity. It's nothing more than an often repeated myth.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Are the owners really going to want to battle their star players in court? No way can the NFL let this happen. There is a reason the last owner offer was the best. If this goes to court, the owners piss off a ton of fans and would have to battle against the star players they need winning them games. This really has the makings of a first-class train wreck.

DD, I don't think the fans will universally side with the players . To the people who don't understand all the anti-trust issues, to some it may appear that the players took their ball and went home. Some fans will side with the players, some with will side with the owners, and some will put a pox on both their houses. (I am in the third category myself). These are very complex legal issues.

Count me as one who doesn't think that having your 100 million dollar QB's whining about being treated unfairly in court is a very good idea.I'm betting there are more people who despise Tom Brady than love him.Popularity is a very fickle thing,once you become overexposed there is typically a backlash, has any athlete received more exposure than Peyton Manning? You can't sit through a football game and not see him 22 times on commercials on any given Sunday.

 

[Class Dismissed]

... I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I think this every serious football fans greatest fear.

Please don't turn the NFL into the NBA or MLB. I use to love both basketball and baseball.... now I don't care, very rarely watch on tv (including playoffs), and only go to live games once in a while because it is something to do and not really because I want to see the sport.

I don't even bother with the World Series or the NBA Finals anymore.

 

[Class Dismissed]

... I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I think this every serious football fans greatest fear.

Please don't turn the NFL into the NBA or MLB. I use to love both basketball and baseball.... now I don't care, very rarely watch on tv (including playoffs), and only go to live games once in a while because it is something to do and not really because I want to see the sport.

The parity argument is nonsense. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thehotstoneleague/2014124244_mlb_vs_nfl_lets_get_this_parit.htmlIt's cool if you no longer like baseball (or even if you never cared for it). Different strokes and all. But football is not some unique sport that offers an unprecedented level of parity. It's nothing more than an often repeated myth.

What a BS article. Any article that uses the "last 11 years", the "past 8 years", is an article that is manipulating data to get the results it wants.The fact is, the NY Yankees spends hundreds of millions of dollars on talent, and small market teams have to rebuild from within every few years because of player purging.

 

[BassNBrew]

If we got to the point of this thing canceling a season, you can bet there WOULD spring a viable alternative league in this country and fast from that pool of available talent. And thats where things get interesting. 4.4. vs. 4.5 guys and the relative skill IS noticable. Its why the XFL failed after a HUGE ratings start. The quality of the ball STUNK. College is the worst example to use regarding player loyalty. Its entirely school/coach driven due to the turnover. As for why there's never been a viable alternative to the NFL, the market simply has been served by what's existed. But I would also submit, leagues have also all made the mistake of trying to grow too fast too soon. But tell me this, if you have Dave Ragone quarterbacking for the New England Patriots versus Tom Brady quarterbacking for the Boston Stranglers in the 2012 season opener, I don't think you'll find the number of laundry rooters you expect.

If Brady is playing in a 25,000 seat dump and not on network TV then plenty of people will be rooting for Ragone. I agree with your statement about the other leagues attemtping to grow too fast. That doesn't work when you don't have the capital availabe that the current owners/league has amassed and brought to the table.How many Kurt Warners are out there? Excluding that argument, half the league could be replaced with talent not playing with zero drop off. There are thousands that didn't catch the right break or have the pedigree to get into the league. In some cases catching the right coaching can make or break a players career.

Well, we're arguing in circles somewhat, extrapolating unlikely hypotheticals, but it does speak to the player value. And you can bet, what we are discussing is NOT something the NFL wants the least bit of momentum to get behind.But considering things... If you stuck to football hotbeds and/or underserved markets and promised players, I don't know, 80 percent of profit outside of operational costs as an initial model, or crafted some mode of player ownership for the league and did a 20 team league of:New YorkDallasDCPhilyLAOrlandoBirminghamHoustonSeattleTorontoBostonPittsburghClevelandMilwaulkeeChicagoPortland/SeattleDenverKansas CityOakland/San FranAnd then were able to through a smaller talent pool of available guys, see a Drew Brees throwing to Andre Johnson, or put Polamalu and Revis in the same secondary lets say, and then sprinkle in your Grudens, Cowhers, Billicks and other high profile coaches on the sidelines and maybe you get Madden out there announcing. In a very quick time, you've established a very visible assemblage of people. I don't doubt there are folks brighter than I drafting plans for just such a venture. Drafting plans doesn't mean committing cash, but boy if you struck when the iron was hot, AND were able to make a power play on the "salary capped" rookies coming out in the draft, the NFL suddenly has a big problem on his its hands.

The biggest problem I see is getting the capital. The current owners get the benefit of established season ticket sales to finance the upcoming seasons. I'd imagine that most banks would laugh at the thought of loaning money for a start up league in this era. Futhermore those with their names and sponspership deals in place might not want to play ball anyway. If this isn't resolved by early next season, the landscape will be soiled for years for both sides. Unless said new venture plans are already in place for this season, the kitty will be too small for the current players to ever come close to touching earning what they would earn under the latest proposal.FWIW...I have oscillated back and forth supporting both sides.

 

[Orange Crush]

... Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder want to have teams better than the rest of the league. Parity be damned.... If the owners really want to save football, then just agree to play out the last two years of the deal they nearly unanimously loved when they signed it and continue to work towards a real deal when the first one should have expired. Else take a chance in courts where the game we love is surely the loser.

First of all, thanks OC for the numbers. You seem to be quite on top of this and I trust your guesses over other people's facts. I think the NFLPA would bring a lot of people to their side if they just explained the drop in salary cap figures in terms of dollars instead of the percentages and the exemptions. Enough of us are bombarded with these secondary numbers(the % and the exemption money) to know they can be manipulated to suit either end. As I posted earlier, I was actually blaming both equally, but how you explained in those raw money terms I lean more to the players side now. I still think they are focusing only on money, which is certainly an important issue, but it should not be the only issue.DD, now that OC has posted the raw numbers, it has swayed my thoughts on this matter. And your point that the owners should have just played out this contract as opposed to the path they chose I think is a very strong persuasive argument, and one that tilts me further in the direction of the players. The NFLPA should hire you two to explain this situation to the fans more clearly.I had to leave in the blurb about Jones & Snyder...for if this game as we know it ceases to be they will be the metaphorical generals with the most blood on their hands. It is their greed that has unfortunately influenced other owners and initiated the change in this game from sport to entertainment since each arrived in the league. I would love for neither the Cowboys or the Redskins to ever make the Super Bowl again as long as these two people are their owners.Thanks to you both for your posts.

De Smith on sportscenter this morning saying the last offer from the owners was for $500M less than the players would have received this year under the old deal, and that number increases in future years up to a > $1B difference four years from now.NFL spokesman on saying that the 2011 cap number would have been the same as the '09 cap number,. and larger than player expenditures last year (which is the first time I've seen the NFL admit it spent less on player salaries during the uncapped year). He then said the cap would grow by $20M over the next 4 years, up to the amount the players wanted.Interesting how the two sides spin the same set of figures.

 

[Dave Larkin]

I'm so sick and tired of these rich babies fighting over this CBA. I really hoped it would get done because I'm an optimist by nature, but this is just a slap in the face.

 

[Da Guru]

The players union keep saying the owners want 1 billion in salary concessions. That sounds like alot but it is only around 30 million per team. Or about 2 high paid players contracts per team.

 

[Orange Crush]

Michael Silver of Yahoo has an article up today showing the Players' viewpoint of the negotiations.

It shows in detail what David and I were saying above -- that the owners tactics created a lack of trust by the players, and that lack of trust couldn't be overcome in the final days. It's a good read.

 

[Da Guru]

Union decertification seems to be a huge victory for the owners. Now every player is their own man. They are not crossing a union picket line anymore. The NFL is now a right to work league.

 

[Bri]

PDF link http://www.nfllockout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Anti_Trust_Filing.pdf to antitrust filing

Brad Biggs tweeted this

 

[Toads]

Time to change the tag line: "Most likely strategy to avoid lockout" is a moot point.

Lock out: (check) yes.

Decertified: (check) yes.

Mess: (never in a million years) yes.

 

[Orange Crush]

Time to change the tag line: "Most likely strategy to avoid lockout" is a moot point.

Lock out: (check) yes.

Decertified: (check) yes.

Mess: (never in a million years) yes.

The lockout is being challenged as an antitrust violation. That challenge could only happen after decertification. Therefore, the title still holds. Though it's all in Judge Doty's hands now.

 

[renesauz]

... I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I think this every serious football fans greatest fear.

Please don't turn the NFL into the NBA or MLB. I use to love both basketball and baseball.... now I don't care, very rarely watch on tv (including playoffs), and only go to live games once in a while because it is something to do and not really because I want to see the sport.

The parity argument is nonsense. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thehotstoneleague/2014124244_mlb_vs_nfl_lets_get_this_parit.htmlIt's cool if you no longer like baseball (or even if you never cared for it). Different strokes and all. But football is not some unique sport that offers an unprecedented level of parity. It's nothing more than an often repeated myth.

What a BS article. Any article that uses the "last 11 years", the "past 8 years", is an article that is manipulating data to get the results it wants.The fact is, the NY Yankees spends hundreds of millions of dollars on talent, and small market teams have to rebuild from within every few years because of player purging.

I get so tired of hearing about parity in baseball. How many WS victories do the Yankees have? How many times have the Brewers been to the playoffs? What happened with the Marlins after they won the WS, and why? The truth is that baseball really only has 5 or 6 "have" teams. Those five or six are in the hunt EVERY year. Just because the other 20+ teams manage to win 3 or 4 WS in a dozen years doesn't mean there is parity. There are at least ten teams in baseball that will NEVER win a WS. There are 12-15 teams that CAN win IF they catch lightning in a bottle...if they catch a couple vets having career years at the same time they develop 2 or 3 youngsters. BUT...unlike the yanks, they can't hold those youngsters. Their window is the one year, not the next five.The idea of parity in baseball is a joke. I used to love baseball, but now despise it for it's economics.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So if my scorecard at home is correct, we have at least four items in court right now:

--The owners contention to the NLRB that the players weren't negotiating in good faith

--The question of whether or not the decertification is a sham

--Whether or not the owners can lock the players out

--The players anti-trust suit

What order are those likely to be resolved? I assume the full anti-trust suit will take the longest and the other three be dealt with quickly? How likely is it that the owners prevail in one of these cases for the first time?

 

[pollardsvision]

... I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I think this every serious football fans greatest fear.

Please don't turn the NFL into the NBA or MLB. I use to love both basketball and baseball.... now I don't care, very rarely watch on tv (including playoffs), and only go to live games once in a while because it is something to do and not really because I want to see the sport.

The parity argument is nonsense. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thehotstoneleague/2014124244_mlb_vs_nfl_lets_get_this_parit.htmlIt's cool if you no longer like baseball (or even if you never cared for it). Different strokes and all. But football is not some unique sport that offers an unprecedented level of parity. It's nothing more than an often repeated myth.

What a BS article. Any article that uses the "last 11 years", the "past 8 years", is an article that is manipulating data to get the results it wants.The fact is, the NY Yankees spends hundreds of millions of dollars on talent, and small market teams have to rebuild from within every few years because of player purging.

Maybe it seems like "fuzzy math" to you, but he's just saying that in both the NFL and MLB, despite the salary structure differences, the number of different teams that make the playoffs, win titles, and completely stink from year-to-year is pretty much the same. Do you disagree with that?That's certainly not to say that the payroll disparities don't create problems. It's just that there are alot more teams with a chance from year to year than people seem to think.

Despite the salary structures of the 2 leagues, the results end up being far more similar than most would think.

MLB has plenty of issues, but the article brings up many valid points.

I think the importance of QBs to NFL teams is the cause of this (lack of the parity that one would expect with a hard cap). In MLB, if you don't have money, you probably won't win a WS. In the NFL, if you don't have a great QB, it's highly unlikely that you'll win a SB.

Great QBs rarely change teams and teams can go for a long time in between great QBs, so good teams are going to stay good and bad teams bad. The rookie salary structure hasn't helped either. Forcing bad teams to pay big money every year to desperately land that stud QB so that they can compete seems to be a viscous cycle.

Oddly, the NFL and NBA share a very similar roadblock to real parity. In both leagues, there is a very small pool of players available that are necessary for yearly title runs (about 10 NFL QBs and about 10 NBA superstars).

In MLB, there is a massive pool players that you can ride to a title run and those players can often be found in the farm system.

 

[Toads]

So if my scorecard at home is correct, we have at least four items in court right now:--The owners contention to the NLRB that the players weren't negotiating in good faith--The question of whether or not the decertification is a sham--Whether or not the owners can lock the players out--The players anti-trust suitWhat order are those likely to be resolved? I assume the full anti-trust suit will take the longest and the other three be dealt with quickly? How likely is it that the owners prevail in one of these cases for the first time?

There's also a fifth, a tag along to the TV Ruling: the players have requested that judge unseal the records in the TV case, stating that it will be the "basis for all rulings to come."

 

[Insomniac]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?

This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

The total revenue of the CFL,UFL and arena football can't be more than 5-10% of the NFL's revenue. There were other oil companies when Standard Oil was broken up. There were other computer companies when IBM faced an anti-trust suit 30+ years ago. I can come up with other examples. There's no doubt that the NFL will make that argument in whatever court they end up in but if their lawyers are counting on it being a winning argument the NFL owners should get some better lawyers.

But anti-trust is there to protect the consumer. Oil and phone companies sit squarely in the arena of public welfare and security.The NFL is an entertainment medium. What I know about anti-trust you could fit in a thimble. But it seems to me that an entertainment enterprise isn't as important as oil and utility companies are when it comes to protecting the consumer from market manipulation. We all have to buy gas and use the phone. Watch football on Sundays? Meh.

And given that NFL salaries absolutely smoke the CFL and competitors, breaking up the NFL might actually shrink player salaries over all. Or imagine the courts going the opposite way and ruling that the NFL has to accept additional teams over an above the current 32 frachises.

Your argument is false. Anti-trust law also protects employees from anti-competitive behavior by business owners not just consumers.

Most business owners would welcome having their employee union dissolve. The NFL owners are going to court to permanently require the NFL players to be in a union because that benefits the owners? Even the ultra right wing Supreme Court Justices aren't going to buy that.

Think again.

The .gov broke up Ma Bell to protect its employees?

They've been watching Microsoft and swordrattling at these huge media mergers in recent years because they want to protect those companies' employees?

Sure, employees get some protection through anti-trust. But the public at large, the consumer, is who anti-trust intends to protect.

You seem to believe that anti-trust exists only to protect the consumer. Anti-trust law also protects employees and even competing businesses as well as consumers.

 

[David Dodds]

Michael Silver of Yahoo has an article up today showing the Players' viewpoint of the negotiations.

It shows in detail what David and I were saying above -- that the owners tactics created a lack of trust by the players, and that lack of trust couldn't be overcome in the final days. It's a good read.

This is an exceptional read on what played out. I have thought the owners were intent on doing anything necessary to "get their league back" for sometime. But in their goal of absolute control, they likely pressed too hard this time. If the decertification is allowed (and I would put the chance of that over 95%), then the owners likely opened up a Pandora's box that is going to turn extremely ugly for them going forward. Maybe that brings everyone back to the table to get a better working agreement. Maybe it gets both sides to hunker down for a long protracted fight. Unfortunately as fans, we just have to wait and react to how this plays out.

 

[David Dodds]

Does the NFL Network make money? I remember reading awhile ago that this network is actually bleeding a ton of money. If that's the case, won't that be hard for the owners to justify money back back from the players?

- Disband the NFL Network

- Sell the rights to those Thursday games to the other networks

- Increase revenue by naming all stadiums

If the owners really chopped their last offer to less than $500M a year, would these things not cover that delta? I would think the broadcast rights to those Thursday games would be substantial.

 

[David Dodds]

Here is what I found on the TV deals:

NBC pays $650 million annually for Sunday-night games

CBS pays about $622.5 million annually for Sunday-afternoon AFC games.

Fox pays $712.5 million annually for Sunday NFC games.

ESPN pays about $1.1 billion annually for Monday-night football games.

So disband the NFL Network (that I believe is operating at a loss) and sell the rights to the networks and we have just increased the revenue pool by 500M or so at a minimum.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Here is what I found on the TV deals:NBC pays $650 million annually for Sunday-night gamesCBS pays about $622.5 million annually for Sunday-afternoon AFC games.Fox pays $712.5 million annually for Sunday NFC games.ESPN pays about $1.1 billion annually for Monday-night football games.So disband the NFL Network (that I believe is operating at a loss) and sell the rights to the networks and we have just increased the revenue pool by 500M or so at a minimum.

That only works if you believe this was really about the owners needing another $X million. If you think it was mostly just about 'taking our league back' and breaking the power of the union, NHL-style, your plan doesn't help them even a little bit.

 

[H8fulHuck]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

Things like the salary cap, restricted free agents, franchise tags are by definition anti-trust. All players should be able to negotiate any price with any team. That's the game of chicken going on. As long as the NFL is willing to play by those rules where the players can go wherever they want and there are no team maximums, then yes your point is correct. But the owners know that salaries will actually increase if they go this route. All it takes is a few owners that put winning over profit (Redskins, Cowboys, and a few others) and this could get super crazy fast.

Think Yankees / Red Sox. This is exactly why I quit following MLB a long time ago. At one time, the Pirates rostered Barry Bonds, Jay Bell, Jeff King and Bobby Bonilla. Let me tell you, that was a fun time to be a Pirates fan. Instead of this becoming the start of a kick ### dynasty, I watched the players leave town because Pittsburgh couldn't pay the players as much. After that, it made me physically ill any time an individual Pirate started playing at a high level because I knew it wouldn't be long before they would leave. To make matters worse, not only did they players leave, but the team was almost forced to start TRADING AWAY IT'S BEST PLAYERS as a preemptive strike. Otherwise, they wouldn't get anything in return because they knew that player would move on. All of a sudden, you have your team's best players leaving just as they are starting to blossom into stars.A true free market system will kill the NFL because small market teams will get dumped on, take a big bite of the #### sandwich and share it with their fans.

 

[David Dodds]

Here is what I found on the TV deals:NBC pays $650 million annually for Sunday-night gamesCBS pays about $622.5 million annually for Sunday-afternoon AFC games.Fox pays $712.5 million annually for Sunday NFC games.ESPN pays about $1.1 billion annually for Monday-night football games.So disband the NFL Network (that I believe is operating at a loss) and sell the rights to the networks and we have just increased the revenue pool by 500M or so at a minimum.

That only works if you believe this was really about the owners needing another $X million. If you think it was mostly just about 'taking our league back' and breaking the power of the union, NHL-style, your plan doesn't help them even a little bit.

But this could very well be the reason the owners don't want to open their books. They like the NFL Network (just don't want to be the people paying for it). I agree that the owners are committed to breaking this union (or at least were when they thought they had a $4B war chest due to the TV rights). When they lost that battle, I bet some of them are starting to wonder whether opting out of the last two years was really such a smart move.

 

[Cripster]

Read a report this morning that the two sides ended $185 million apart on revenue sharing. Has anyone else seen different numbers? That's only 2% of the kitty. Hard to justify that difference with litigation. I think if this number is accurate, then the litigation is about changing how business is done forevermore, not just money.

 

[David Dodds]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

Things like the salary cap, restricted free agents, franchise tags are by definition anti-trust. All players should be able to negotiate any price with any team. That's the game of chicken going on. As long as the NFL is willing to play by those rules where the players can go wherever they want and there are no team maximums, then yes your point is correct. But the owners know that salaries will actually increase if they go this route. All it takes is a few owners that put winning over profit (Redskins, Cowboys, and a few others) and this could get super crazy fast.

Think Yankees / Red Sox. This is exactly why I quit following MLB a long time ago. At one time, the Pirates rostered Barry Bonds, Jay Bell, Jeff King and Bobby Bonilla. Let me tell you, that was a fun time to be a Pirates fan. Instead of this becoming the start of a kick ### dynasty, I watched the players leave town because Pittsburgh couldn't pay the players as much. After that, it made me physically ill any time an individual Pirate started playing at a high level because I knew it wouldn't be long before they would leave. To make matters worse, not only did they players leave, but the team was almost forced to start TRADING AWAY IT'S BEST PLAYERS as a preemptive strike. Otherwise, they wouldn't get anything in return because they knew that player would move on. All of a sudden, you have your team's best players leaving just as they are starting to blossom into stars.A true free market system will kill the NFL because small market teams will get dumped on, take a big bite of the #### sandwich and share it with their fans.

We all agree as fans that this will suck. But did it suck for the players? I think they collectively make more money in the way MLB works than they did before. Owners are competitive and that competitiveness will skyrocket salaries if the owners have no caps in place. It will also lead to more guaranteed money, taking big losses on players that don't work out, etc. The owners are going to regret things in a big way if they let the NFL go down this path. The fans will hate it, salaries will accelerate, and in the end the owners will make a lot less money.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

Things like the salary cap, restricted free agents, franchise tags are by definition anti-trust. All players should be able to negotiate any price with any team. That's the game of chicken going on. As long as the NFL is willing to play by those rules where the players can go wherever they want and there are no team maximums, then yes your point is correct. But the owners know that salaries will actually increase if they go this route. All it takes is a few owners that put winning over profit (Redskins, Cowboys, and a few others) and this could get super crazy fast.

Think Yankees / Red Sox. This is exactly why I quit following MLB a long time ago. At one time, the Pirates rostered Barry Bonds, Jay Bell, Jeff King and Bobby Bonilla. Let me tell you, that was a fun time to be a Pirates fan. Instead of this becoming the start of a kick ### dynasty, I watched the players leave town because Pittsburgh couldn't pay the players as much. After that, it made me physically ill any time an individual Pirate started playing at a high level because I knew it wouldn't be long before they would leave. To make matters worse, not only did they players leave, but the team was almost forced to start TRADING AWAY IT'S BEST PLAYERS as a preemptive strike. Otherwise, they wouldn't get anything in return because they knew that player would move on. All of a sudden, you have your team's best players leaving just as they are starting to blossom into stars.A true free market system will kill the NFL because small market teams will get dumped on, take a big bite of the #### sandwich and share it with their fans.

Using the Pirates as an example of baseball is equal to using the Lions as an example of football. They're both horribly inept franchises with crappy ownership. Neither should be mentioned as examples of normality.

 

[Insomniac]

Antitrust lawsuit alleges that NFL has waived "sham" defense to decertificationhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/antitrust-lawsuit-alleges-that-nfl-has-waived-sham-defense-to-decertification/Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league "insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days." To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, "if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration," the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was "a sham or otherwise ineffective."In other words, if the players' allegations are accurate, the NFL can't use the "sham" silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players' lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we'll have football in 2011.

Here's the language from the CBA:----ARTICLE LVIIMUTUAL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:LABOR EXEMPTIONSection 3. CBA Expiration:(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and it's Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any anti-trust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of it's status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps or has in fact not occurred.---I don't speak legalese but how does the NFL even take this "sham decertification" argument to the NLRB or court?

 

[Steed]

Here is what I found on the TV deals:NBC pays $650 million annually for Sunday-night gamesCBS pays about $622.5 million annually for Sunday-afternoon AFC games.Fox pays $712.5 million annually for Sunday NFC games.ESPN pays about $1.1 billion annually for Monday-night football games.So disband the NFL Network (that I believe is operating at a loss) and sell the rights to the networks and we have just increased the revenue pool by 500M or so at a minimum.

That only works if you believe this was really about the owners needing another $X million. If you think it was mostly just about 'taking our league back' and breaking the power of the union, NHL-style, your plan doesn't help them even a little bit.

But this could very well be the reason the owners don't want to open their books. They like the NFL Network (just don't want to be the people paying for it). I agree that the owners are committed to breaking this union (or at least were when they thought they had a $4B war chest due to the TV rights). When they lost that battle, I bet some of them are starting to wonder whether opting out of the last two years was really such a smart move.

I'd like to see proof where the NFL Network is operating at a loss. Isn't the YES Network the primary reason the Yankees have endless money to spend? I gotta believe NFLN draws more eyeballs based that it covers the entire nation's teams in the most popular sport.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I agree that the owners are committed to breaking this union (or at least were when they thought they had a $4B war chest due to the TV rights). When they lost that battle, I bet some of them are starting to wonder whether opting out of the last two years was really such a smart move.

I think this is right, but they just couldn't bring themselves to capitulate. They tried to get something out of nothing despite the change in circumstances, and may not have realized how strong the players believed their position to be. When we look back at the NFL ten years from now this may be seen as one of the all-time great strategic blunders. The owners may find a way out of the jam, but if they don't they are probably going to long for the good old days of 2010.

 

[daveR]

Since the now-defunct NFLPA doesn't want to partner with the NFL, what's to stop someone else (like FBG) from gathering a couple thousand "players" and offering to take their place?

 

[T J]

Antitrust lawsuit alleges that NFL has waived "sham" defense to decertificationhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/antitrust-lawsuit-alleges-that-nfl-has-waived-sham-defense-to-decertification/Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league "insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days." To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, "if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration," the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was "a sham or otherwise ineffective."In other words, if the players' allegations are accurate, the NFL can't use the "sham" silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players' lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we'll have football in 2011.

Here's the language from the CBA:----ARTICLE LVIIMUTUAL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:LABOR EXEMPTIONSection 3. CBA Expiration:(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and it's Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any anti-trust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of it's status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps or has in fact not occurred.---I don't speak legalese but how does the NFL even take this "sham decertification" argument to the NLRB or court?

I just wonder if the "on or after" part of that language is the key. They technically decertified before the CBA expired, albeit with extensions and with only hours to spare. I think the owners can claim that they continued to negotiate in good faith up until that point.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Michael Silver of Yahoo has an article up today showing the Players' viewpoint of the negotiations.

It shows in detail what David and I were saying above -- that the owners tactics created a lack of trust by the players, and that lack of trust couldn't be overcome in the final days. It's a good read.

This is an exceptional read on what played out. I have thought the owners were intent on doing anything necessary to "get their league back" for sometime. But in their goal of absolute control, they likely pressed too hard this time. If the decertification is allowed (and I would put the chance of that over 95%), then the owners likely opened up a Pandora's box that is going to turn extremely ugly for them going forward. Maybe that brings everyone back to the table to get a better working agreement. Maybe it gets both sides to hunker down for a long protracted fight. Unfortunately as fans, we just have to wait and react to how this plays out.

Thanks for the article link OC, and I agree with David that wait-and-see is our only option at the moment. I did call DirecTV today and cancelled the auto-renewal on my NFL Sunday Ticket for 2011. I told the gal on the phone that I wasn't paying their premium to watch replacement players play in 2011. I figured the only way I can make an adequate protest to both the NFL and the NFLPA was to hit them in the wallet (potentially). If enough people start canceling their NFL Sunday Ticket subs that should make both sides take notice. Other than taking this step, though, there isn't much fans can do at this particular moment.I am going to write both the NFL and NFLPA and explain why I cancelled my Sunday Ticket subscription.

 

[H8fulHuck]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

Things like the salary cap, restricted free agents, franchise tags are by definition anti-trust. All players should be able to negotiate any price with any team. That's the game of chicken going on. As long as the NFL is willing to play by those rules where the players can go wherever they want and there are no team maximums, then yes your point is correct. But the owners know that salaries will actually increase if they go this route. All it takes is a few owners that put winning over profit (Redskins, Cowboys, and a few others) and this could get super crazy fast.

Think Yankees / Red Sox. This is exactly why I quit following MLB a long time ago. At one time, the Pirates rostered Barry Bonds, Jay Bell, Jeff King and Bobby Bonilla. Let me tell you, that was a fun time to be a Pirates fan. Instead of this becoming the start of a kick ### dynasty, I watched the players leave town because Pittsburgh couldn't pay the players as much. After that, it made me physically ill any time an individual Pirate started playing at a high level because I knew it wouldn't be long before they would leave. To make matters worse, not only did they players leave, but the team was almost forced to start TRADING AWAY IT'S BEST PLAYERS as a preemptive strike. Otherwise, they wouldn't get anything in return because they knew that player would move on. All of a sudden, you have your team's best players leaving just as they are starting to blossom into stars.A true free market system will kill the NFL because small market teams will get dumped on, take a big bite of the #### sandwich and share it with their fans.

We all agree as fans that this will suck. But did it suck for the players? I think they collectively make more money in the way MLB works than they did before. Owners are competitive and that competitiveness will skyrocket salaries if the owners have no caps in place. It will also lead to more guaranteed money, taking big losses on players that don't work out, etc. The owners are going to regret things in a big way if they let the NFL go down this path. The fans will hate it, salaries will accelerate, and in the end the owners will make a lot less money.

Agreed. It can also lead to the nightmare the NBA has with players having more power than their coaches. It's better for the elite players because they can often strong arm the teams into compliance. How can a coach focus on making the team more successful when he knows that winning isn't enough. The Cavs won more games in the NBA than any other team last season and for his efforts, he gets fired to improve the Cavs chances of retaining LeBron. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[RaiderBones]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

Things like the salary cap, restricted free agents, franchise tags are by definition anti-trust. All players should be able to negotiate any price with any team. That's the game of chicken going on. As long as the NFL is willing to play by those rules where the players can go wherever they want and there are no team maximums, then yes your point is correct. But the owners know that salaries will actually increase if they go this route. All it takes is a few owners that put winning over profit (Redskins, Cowboys, and a few others) and this could get super crazy fast.

Think Yankees / Red Sox. This is exactly why I quit following MLB a long time ago. At one time, the Pirates rostered Barry Bonds, Jay Bell, Jeff King and Bobby Bonilla. Let me tell you, that was a fun time to be a Pirates fan. Instead of this becoming the start of a kick ### dynasty, I watched the players leave town because Pittsburgh couldn't pay the players as much. After that, it made me physically ill any time an individual Pirate started playing at a high level because I knew it wouldn't be long before they would leave. To make matters worse, not only did they players leave, but the team was almost forced to start TRADING AWAY IT'S BEST PLAYERS as a preemptive strike. Otherwise, they wouldn't get anything in return because they knew that player would move on. All of a sudden, you have your team's best players leaving just as they are starting to blossom into stars.A true free market system will kill the NFL because small market teams will get dumped on, take a big bite of the #### sandwich and share it with their fans.

Using the Pirates as an example of baseball is equal to using the Lions as an example of football. They're both horribly inept franchises with crappy ownership. Neither should be mentioned as examples of normality.

This comparison doesn't hold water. Detroit Lions are bad because of bad ownership. Pirates are bad because they can't compete financially with the big boys like the Yankees and Red Sox. I am sure that if the Pirates had the money to spend that the Yankees and Red Sox have, they would be a perennial play-off team. Yes its true a few small market teams are competitive in baseball but most of them are not.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I did call DirecTV today and cancelled the auto-renewal on my NFL Sunday Ticket for 2011. I told the gal on the phone that I wasn't paying their premium to watch replacement players play in 2011.

My limited understanding is that there's no chance of a strike, and therefore no chance that we'll see replacement players.If the owners' lockout is upheld, there may not be a season — which is a good reason not to pay for NFL Sunday Ticket. But if there is a season, it will be with normal NFL players.

 

[H8fulHuck]

Here is what I found on the TV deals:NBC pays $650 million annually for Sunday-night gamesCBS pays about $622.5 million annually for Sunday-afternoon AFC games.Fox pays $712.5 million annually for Sunday NFC games.ESPN pays about $1.1 billion annually for Monday-night football games.So disband the NFL Network (that I believe is operating at a loss) and sell the rights to the networks and we have just increased the revenue pool by 500M or so at a minimum.

That only works if you believe this was really about the owners needing another $X million. If you think it was mostly just about 'taking our league back' and breaking the power of the union, NHL-style, your plan doesn't help them even a little bit.

But this could very well be the reason the owners don't want to open their books. They like the NFL Network (just don't want to be the people paying for it). I agree that the owners are committed to breaking this union (or at least were when they thought they had a $4B war chest due to the TV rights). When they lost that battle, I bet some of them are starting to wonder whether opting out of the last two years was really such a smart move.

I'd like to see proof where the NFL Network is operating at a loss. Isn't the YES Network the primary reason the Yankees have endless money to spend? I gotta believe NFLN draws more eyeballs based that it covers the entire nation's teams in the most popular sport.

Rather than sell off the TV rights to another network, the NFLN shouldn't have much trouble making more than that from selling advertisements. A big step would be to reduce the cost for cable/satellite companies as long as it is included in the basic packages. By getting more exposure to the public, you create a bigger audience thus driving up advertising revenue. Trying to strong arm cable companies has limited ratings and put them in an inferior position to advertisers.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Antitrust lawsuit alleges that NFL has waived "sham" defense to decertificationhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/antitrust-lawsuit-alleges-that-nfl-has-waived-sham-defense-to-decertification/Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league "insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days." To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, "if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration," the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was "a sham or otherwise ineffective."In other words, if the players' allegations are accurate, the NFL can't use the "sham" silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players' lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we'll have football in 2011.

Here's the language from the CBA:----ARTICLE LVIIMUTUAL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:LABOR EXEMPTIONSection 3. CBA Expiration:(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and it's Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any anti-trust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of it's status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps or has in fact not occurred.---I don't speak legalese but how does the NFL even take this "sham decertification" argument to the NLRB or court?

I just wonder if the "on or after" part of that language is the key. They technically decertified before the CBA expired, albeit with extensions and with only hours to spare. I think the owners can claim that they continued to negotiate in good faith up until that point.

Yes, I think that's a key point. I don't think the owners have waived their right to argue that decertification is a sham. (Which, of course, does not mean that the owners' argument in that regard will be successful — just that they'll likely be able to raise it.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?

This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

The total revenue of the CFL,UFL and arena football can't be more than 5-10% of the NFL's revenue. There were other oil companies when Standard Oil was broken up. There were other computer companies when IBM faced an anti-trust suit 30+ years ago. I can come up with other examples. There's no doubt that the NFL will make that argument in whatever court they end up in but if their lawyers are counting on it being a winning argument the NFL owners should get some better lawyers.

But anti-trust is there to protect the consumer. Oil and phone companies sit squarely in the arena of public welfare and security.The NFL is an entertainment medium. What I know about anti-trust you could fit in a thimble. But it seems to me that an entertainment enterprise isn't as important as oil and utility companies are when it comes to protecting the consumer from market manipulation. We all have to buy gas and use the phone. Watch football on Sundays? Meh.

And given that NFL salaries absolutely smoke the CFL and competitors, breaking up the NFL might actually shrink player salaries over all. Or imagine the courts going the opposite way and ruling that the NFL has to accept additional teams over an above the current 32 frachises.

Your argument is false. Anti-trust law also protects employees from anti-competitive behavior by business owners not just consumers. Most business owners would welcome having their employee union dissolve. The NFL owners are going to court to permanently require the NFL players to be in a union because that benefits the owners? Even the ultra right wing Supreme Court Justices aren't going to buy that.

Think again.The .gov broke up Ma Bell to protect its employees?

They've been watching Microsoft and swordrattling at these huge media mergers in recent years because they want to protect those companies' employees?

Sure, employees get some protection through anti-trust. But the public at large, the consumer, is who anti-trust intends to protect.

You cannot prove false the notion that some engineers are female by pointing out a few examples of engineers who are male.Antitrust laws prohibit businesses from colluding against both consumers and laborers.

 

[H8fulHuck]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

Things like the salary cap, restricted free agents, franchise tags are by definition anti-trust. All players should be able to negotiate any price with any team. That's the game of chicken going on. As long as the NFL is willing to play by those rules where the players can go wherever they want and there are no team maximums, then yes your point is correct. But the owners know that salaries will actually increase if they go this route. All it takes is a few owners that put winning over profit (Redskins, Cowboys, and a few others) and this could get super crazy fast.

Think Yankees / Red Sox. This is exactly why I quit following MLB a long time ago. At one time, the Pirates rostered Barry Bonds, Jay Bell, Jeff King and Bobby Bonilla. Let me tell you, that was a fun time to be a Pirates fan. Instead of this becoming the start of a kick ### dynasty, I watched the players leave town because Pittsburgh couldn't pay the players as much. After that, it made me physically ill any time an individual Pirate started playing at a high level because I knew it wouldn't be long before they would leave. To make matters worse, not only did they players leave, but the team was almost forced to start TRADING AWAY IT'S BEST PLAYERS as a preemptive strike. Otherwise, they wouldn't get anything in return because they knew that player would move on. All of a sudden, you have your team's best players leaving just as they are starting to blossom into stars.A true free market system will kill the NFL because small market teams will get dumped on, take a big bite of the #### sandwich and share it with their fans.

Using the Pirates as an example of baseball is equal to using the Lions as an example of football. They're both horribly inept franchises with crappy ownership. Neither should be mentioned as examples of normality.

You know what really sucks is the Pirates franchise is making more money by being a bottom feeder than if they tried to field a winning product. Sure, they'd like to win, but odds are the team would just lose money in an attempt to be mediocre. Tough call...lose money in the hopes of being mediocre with a lightning strike chance of making noise in the playoffs...ooooor...resign to the fact that you can turn a tidy profit off the backs of $ generating teams like the Yanks by just sitting back and enjoying the ride. Hey, if now and then you develop a great player, the Yanks can have the player as thanks. Teams like the Pirates are the welfare system of MLB. Does taking advantage of the system make the Pirates ownership crappy or brilliant?The Lions are in a much different situation because the Detroit has just as much potential to succeed as the Steelers, Patriots and Packers. The ownership has more incentive and reward to field a competitive team and realistically compete for a ring. The structure of the NFL makes for a better competitive environment from a team perspective which is better for the fans.Bottom line as things stand, a Lions fan will see their team go to the Super Bowl before a Pirates fan will see their team even make the playoffs.

 

[Obie Wan]

Antitrust lawsuit alleges that NFL has waived "sham" defense to decertificationhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/antitrust-lawsuit-alleges-that-nfl-has-waived-sham-defense-to-decertification/Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league "insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days." To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, "if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration," the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was "a sham or otherwise ineffective."In other words, if the players' allegations are accurate, the NFL can't use the "sham" silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players' lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we'll have football in 2011.

Here's the language from the CBA:----ARTICLE LVIIMUTUAL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:LABOR EXEMPTIONSection 3. CBA Expiration:(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and it's Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any anti-trust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of it's status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps or has in fact not occurred.---I don't speak legalese but how does the NFL even take this "sham decertification" argument to the NLRB or court?

I just wonder if the "on or after" part of that language is the key. They technically decertified before the CBA expired, albeit with extensions and with only hours to spare. I think the owners can claim that they continued to negotiate in good faith up until that point.

Yes, I think that's a key point. I don't think the owners have waived their right to argue that decertification is a sham. (Which, of course, does not mean that the owners' argument in that regard will be successful — just that they'll likely be able to raise it.)

I would think that the first sentence "The Parties agree that, AFTER the expiration of the express term of this Agreement" is the controlling language. It would seem there is an argument that the league can still challenge the de-certification since the NFLPA clearly acted PRIOR to the expiration of the agreement- although the NFLPA will probably argue that the union leaders only renounced their interest before the agreement expired with the actual decertification not being finalized until later. The bigger question is which judge will hear the argument regarding the de-certification.