NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

Come one man, you aren't really equating this to price-fixing, are you?

When teams agree with each other on the amount they'll pay for players, yes, of course that's price-fixing. Wages are prices, and wage-fixing is price-fixing. There are cases on that, if you want me to cite one.

OK...but it's a differant "victim". And I can't wrap my head around calling an NFL player, with an average salary of 2.7 MILLION dollars a financial victim. If all the oil companies got together and decided to "fix" gas prices at 2 bucks a gallon, would you still cry foul? It's still illegal after all! In other words, I don't philosophically agree that price-fixing or wage-fixing is AUTOMATICALLY immoral. It may be illegal, but it's not always immoral. IN the end, I care more about the morality than the legality. I would rather change the legality to match morality than vice-versa.ETA: I defer to you on legalities. I simply refuse to assume that legality = right (or moral, if you will.)

 

[Spiderman]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling.

So why waste resources arguing in this lower court. Just let the lady rule and let's move to the Appeals Court.

 

[fatness]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling.

If the owners are assuming these things (that higher court decisions will be made solely on political affiliation), I think they're making a bad and stupid mistake. So they probably are.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling.

Why would conservative judges be likely to side with the owners? In your opinion, are conservative judges particularly prone to disregard the law and issue rulings based on their own personal policy preferences?

 

[cubd8]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling.

Why would conservative judges be likely to side with the owners? In your opinion, are conservative judges particularly prone to disregard the law and issue rulings based on their own personal policy preferences?

In fairness, wasn't Nelson considered to be a liberal judge who was likely to side with the players from the start? I have no idea who is right from a legal perspective, but I'm sure the the judges who rule one way or another on these issues probably think that have good legal standing to do so....just my two sense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling.

Why would conservative judges be likely to side with the owners? In your opinion, are conservative judges particularly prone to disregard the law and issue rulings based on their own personal policy preferences?

In fairness, wasn't Nelson considered to be a liberal judge who was likely to side with the players from the start? I have no idea who is right from a legal perspective, but I'm sure the the judges who rule one way or another on these issues probably think that have good legal standing to do so....just my two sense.

I just don't see what liberal or conservative has to do with it. This isn't Bush v. Gore.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling.

Why would conservative judges be likely to side with the owners? In your opinion, are conservative judges particularly prone to disregard the law and issue rulings based on their own personal policy preferences?

In fairness, wasn't Nelson considered to be a liberal judge who was likely to side with the players from the start? I have no idea who is right from a legal perspective, but I'm sure the the judges who rule one way or another on these issues probably think that have good legal standing to do so....just my two sense.

I just don't see what liberal or conservative has to do with it. This isn't Bush v. Gore.

exactly the law is th elaw. Dont they have to have a reason to overturn her judgement? Saying Im a conservative isnt a reason right?I thought all along everyone has said that the players side will win in the courts. time for the owners to step up and move along

Supreme Court? will they even bother with this?

 

[cubd8]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling.

Why would conservative judges be likely to side with the owners? In your opinion, are conservative judges particularly prone to disregard the law and issue rulings based on their own personal policy preferences?

In fairness, wasn't Nelson considered to be a liberal judge who was likely to side with the players from the start? I have no idea who is right from a legal perspective, but I'm sure the the judges who rule one way or another on these issues probably think that have good legal standing to do so....just my two sense.

I just don't see what liberal or conservative has to do with it. This isn't Bush v. Gore.

You may be right. I know you're a bright legal mind so I defer to you, but I seem to run into the political connections these judges seem to have whenever I read some analysis on what may happen.

 

[fatness]

You may be right. I know you're a bright legal mind so I defer to you, but I seem to run into the political connections these judges seem to have whenever I read some analysis on what may happen.

From what I've read that's been a solid part of the owners' strategy so far. The thought they'd win with Judge Nelson, but they've been confident any decision she made favoring the players could and would be overturned by "more conservative" judges on appeal. I think that's terrible strategy and an awful simplistic thing to count on, but I guess we'll see.

 

[David Dodds]

I am hoping hundreds of players show up to workout tomorrow. Let Free Agency begin.

Honestly, I think the NFL would be super smart here to take a day and publish rules, etc that the 2011 season will be played under. Open free agency on Wednesday which then allows free agency, the draft and trades of players all to take place during the draft. It would be a bonanza for fans and push all of this legal haggling to the sidelines for now.

They can then still keep pushing forward on the mediation while this gets pushed towards an appeal (which I fully expect the owners to also lose).

 

[Ksquared]

I think the issue all along is this was not in their Anti-trust violation pervue since the NFLs position (and most on this board) is the Union has never really decertified in reality. That this issue should be dealt with by the labor relations board to review whether the sides are negotiating in good faith. There is a lot more than just anti-trust issues, but who has jurisdiction during failed labor negotiations?

 

[roadkill1292]

Why do we think that players want to retain the draft?

The veterans will want to retain something like the draft because it suppresses rookie wages. Less money for rookies means more money for veterans.

in a world with a salary cap this may be true.. Without one, agents and vets would argue that outrageous rookie salaries drive up second and third contracts for superstar players. Peyton Manning can't make less than Cam Newton, right. So in the free market, when Cam Newton agrees to a ridiculous new contract, Manning re-negotiates his contract to exceed it.

Without a CBA allowing a draft, the NFL CAN'T continue a draft. It won't matter if the players like it or want it. All it will take is ONE single player to sue...then the NFL will be open to a class action suit with treble damages, as well as a court order to suspend the draft. Whether the majority of players wanted it or not will be immaterial.

What's stopping someone like Vonn Miller from just ignoring whoever picks him in this upcoming "draft?" And then causing havoc in the courts and in the labor negotiations going forward?

 

[renesauz]

Maurile, a question for you:

We all have assumed that the draft this year is OK because it was negotiated in the last CBA (alreday covered), but the players about to be drafted were not party to those negotiations. While no draftees are ever a party, don't they imply their consent by declaring themselves eligible and by the recognition of the fact that the NFL has negotiated a deal whereby they won't hire anyone "non-union"? IE: The players agree to join the union by declaring their intent to play for the NFL?

With that in mind, if there is no Union, then the draftees have not consented to anything. If then their only path to the NFL is via the draft, wouldn't THIS year's draft be illegal in the absence of a players union? IE: IF the union is truly defunct, than no agreement it made on behalf of the draftees is enforceable, since the draftees did not themselves have a say in the negotiations that resulted in this draft, nor are even able to join the Union which made the agreement (thereby implying consent)?

It seems to me that by holding a draft, BOTH the NFL and the executives of the last NFLPA which agreed to the last CBA place themselves in a position of liability unless a new CBA is made with an actual Union. I don't see how the agreement to have a draft this year will hold any legal weight/relevance sans a Union recertification and eventual CBA (whether that new CBA contains a future draft provision is immaterial...the existance of a Union at draft time and progress towards a CBA is what's relevant.)

Please clarify??????? Couldn't it then be argued that the NFLPA had a legal obligation to remain a Union until at least AFTER the draft?

 

[Hoosier16]

Why do we think that players want to retain the draft?

The veterans will want to retain something like the draft because it suppresses rookie wages. Less money for rookies means more money for veterans.

in a world with a salary cap this may be true.. Without one, agents and vets would argue that outrageous rookie salaries drive up second and third contracts for superstar players. Peyton Manning can't make less than Cam Newton, right. So in the free market, when Cam Newton agrees to a ridiculous new contract, Manning re-negotiates his contract to exceed it.

Without a CBA allowing a draft, the NFL CAN'T continue a draft. It won't matter if the players like it or want it. All it will take is ONE single player to sue...then the NFL will be open to a class action suit with treble damages, as well as a court order to suspend the draft. Whether the majority of players wanted it or not will be immaterial.

What's stopping someone like Vonn Miller from just ignoring whoever picks him in this upcoming "draft?" And then causing havoc in the courts and in the labor negotiations going forward?

Probably the same thing that has always stopped rookies from doing this - it was agreed upon in the CBA. That CBA still governs this draft. The part I'm wondering about is if the last CBA allows for this draft, does the last CBA also guarantee the rookies a salary minimum?

 

[renesauz]

Probably the same thing that has always stopped rookies from doing this - it was agreed upon in the CBA. That CBA still governs this draft. The part I'm wondering about is if the last CBA allows for this draft, does the last CBA also guarantee the rookies a salary minimum?

Legally, why would the agreement of a defunct Union hold priority? Only the existance of a Union and an NFL agreement to hire only Union personel makes any agreement of said Union binding on new employees. The Unions agreements can't be enforced in the absence of a Union, can they?I don't think this is a lawsuit the NFL can afford. BUt I could be wrong....Maurile????????

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile, a question for you:We all have assumed that the draft this year is OK because it was negotiated in the last CBA (alreday covered), but the players about to be drafted were not party to those negotiations. While no draftees are ever a party, don't they imply their consent by declaring themselves eligible and by the recognition of the fact that the NFL has negotiated a deal whereby they won't hire anyone "non-union"? IE: The players agree to join the union by declaring their intent to play for the NFL?With that in mind, if there is no Union, then the draftees have not consented to anything. If then their only path to the NFL is via the draft, wouldn't THIS year's draft be illegal in the absence of a players union? IE: IF the union is truly defunct, than no agreement it made on behalf of the draftees is enforceable, since the draftees did not themselves have a say in the negotiations that resulted in this draft, nor are even able to join the Union which made the agreement (thereby implying consent)?It seems to me that by holding a draft, BOTH the NFL and the executives of the last NFLPA which agreed to the last CBA place themselves in a position of liability unless a new CBA is made with an actual Union. I don't see how the agreement to have a draft this year will hold any legal weight/relevance sans a Union recertification and eventual CBA (whether that new CBA contains a future draft provision is immaterial...the existance of a Union at draft time and progress towards a CBA is what's relevant.)Please clarify??????? Couldn't it then be argued that the NFLPA had a legal obligation to remain a Union until at least AFTER the draft?

The legality of drafts that are agreed to in collective bargaining agreements isn't based on the incoming players' (implied or express) consent. It's based on the right of the union to negotiate terms that apply to prospective hires as well as to existing employees (as long as it does so in good faith).

 

[CalBear]

OK...but it's a differant "victim". And I can't wrap my head around calling an NFL player, with an average salary of 2.7 MILLION dollars a financial victim.

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

 

[Hoosier16]

Maurile, a question for you:We all have assumed that the draft this year is OK because it was negotiated in the last CBA (alreday covered), but the players about to be drafted were not party to those negotiations. While no draftees are ever a party, don't they imply their consent by declaring themselves eligible and by the recognition of the fact that the NFL has negotiated a deal whereby they won't hire anyone "non-union"? IE: The players agree to join the union by declaring their intent to play for the NFL?With that in mind, if there is no Union, then the draftees have not consented to anything. If then their only path to the NFL is via the draft, wouldn't THIS year's draft be illegal in the absence of a players union? IE: IF the union is truly defunct, than no agreement it made on behalf of the draftees is enforceable, since the draftees did not themselves have a say in the negotiations that resulted in this draft, nor are even able to join the Union which made the agreement (thereby implying consent)?It seems to me that by holding a draft, BOTH the NFL and the executives of the last NFLPA which agreed to the last CBA place themselves in a position of liability unless a new CBA is made with an actual Union. I don't see how the agreement to have a draft this year will hold any legal weight/relevance sans a Union recertification and eventual CBA (whether that new CBA contains a future draft provision is immaterial...the existance of a Union at draft time and progress towards a CBA is what's relevant.)Please clarify??????? Couldn't it then be argued that the NFLPA had a legal obligation to remain a Union until at least AFTER the draft?

The legality of drafts that are agreed to in collective bargaining agreements isn't based on the incoming players' (implied or express) consent. It's based on the right of the union to negotiate terms that apply to prospective hires as well as to existing employees (as long as it does so in good faith).

So does it end when the draft ends or does it extend to the signing of the draftees?

 

[renesauz]

Maurile, a question for you:We all have assumed that the draft this year is OK because it was negotiated in the last CBA (alreday covered), but the players about to be drafted were not party to those negotiations. While no draftees are ever a party, don't they imply their consent by declaring themselves eligible and by the recognition of the fact that the NFL has negotiated a deal whereby they won't hire anyone "non-union"? IE: The players agree to join the union by declaring their intent to play for the NFL?With that in mind, if there is no Union, then the draftees have not consented to anything. If then their only path to the NFL is via the draft, wouldn't THIS year's draft be illegal in the absence of a players union? IE: IF the union is truly defunct, than no agreement it made on behalf of the draftees is enforceable, since the draftees did not themselves have a say in the negotiations that resulted in this draft, nor are even able to join the Union which made the agreement (thereby implying consent)?It seems to me that by holding a draft, BOTH the NFL and the executives of the last NFLPA which agreed to the last CBA place themselves in a position of liability unless a new CBA is made with an actual Union. I don't see how the agreement to have a draft this year will hold any legal weight/relevance sans a Union recertification and eventual CBA (whether that new CBA contains a future draft provision is immaterial...the existance of a Union at draft time and progress towards a CBA is what's relevant.)Please clarify??????? Couldn't it then be argued that the NFLPA had a legal obligation to remain a Union until at least AFTER the draft?

The legality of drafts that are agreed to in collective bargaining agreements isn't based on the incoming players' (implied or express) consent. It's based on the right of the union to negotiate terms that apply to prospective hires as well as to existing employees (as long as it does so in good faith).

Understood, but doesn't that assume that the Union will continue as an entity? This is entirely unique, and precedent is unlikely to exist. I could see a lawsuit being attempted, and I fail to see a reasonable argument why such a suit would fail.

 

[Ksquared]

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

Classic prolabor view. Unions were and normally are representing individuals that do not have the power to negotiate on their own, thus the power of a group (union). Your last line is such a joke in the same line with defending unions. In normal unions you forgo what you as an individual could possibly make through hard work, ingenuity, drive, etc. You get the same as the person that doesn't give a bleep, no matter how much more productive you might be. That is part of the examples given earlier about the abuse of laws that were never created for this type of "union", let alone these type of businesses. The NFLPA is anything but a normal union or classic labor organization.

 

[Pope Benedict XVI Fan]

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

Classic prolabor view. Unions were and normally are representing individuals that do not have the power to negotiate on their own, thus the power of a group (union). Your last line is such a joke in the same line with defending unions. In normal unions you forgo what you as an individual could possibly make through hard work, ingenuity, drive, etc. You get the same as the person that doesn't give a bleep, no matter how much more productive you might be. That is part of the examples given earlier about the abuse of laws that were never created for this type of "union", let alone these type of businesses. The NFLPA is anything but a normal union or classic labor organization.

What makes you say this? Teachers don't all get paid the same, firefighters don't all get paid the same, Hollywood directors don't all get paid the same - and they are all unionized.And if you are a player that "doesn't give a bleep" then you aren't sticking around on an NFL roster for very long, union or not.

 

[renesauz]

OK...but it's a differant "victim". And I can't wrap my head around calling an NFL player, with an average salary of 2.7 MILLION dollars a financial victim.

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

I'll agree to disagree on this point. Miners and other early Union laborers had few options for a living at all, the NFL players have plenty. Even the most liberal estimates place NFL profits at numbers lower than typical for businesses of their size, so arguments that they are "abusing" players financially are beyond ridiculous. If anything, the raw numbers suggest the opposite. The truth is that the normal "moral code" and "labor laws" simply don't work as equitably and reasonably in this scenario.I'm not arguing law here. I'm arguing against the might makes right mindset. Players have the might based on law...doesn't make them automatically "right". They have the might because virtually all of the best practices of the NFL are counter to trust and labor laws. The law doesn't easily distinguish the purpose and reasonableness of those counter-policies, giving the NFLPA an abnormal and unusual weapon in their labor negotiations. THIS Union holds more power than is reasonable in negotiation.

 

[Ksquared]

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

Classic prolabor view. Unions were and normally are representing individuals that do not have the power to negotiate on their own, thus the power of a group (union). Your last line is such a joke in the same line with defending unions. In normal unions you forgo what you as an individual could possibly make through hard work, ingenuity, drive, etc. You get the same as the person that doesn't give a bleep, no matter how much more productive you might be. That is part of the examples given earlier about the abuse of laws that were never created for this type of "union", let alone these type of businesses. The NFLPA is anything but a normal union or classic labor organization.

What makes you say this? Teachers don't all get paid the same, firefighters don't all get paid the same, Hollywood directors don't all get paid the same - and they are all unionized.And if you are a player that "doesn't give a bleep" then you aren't sticking around on an NFL roster for very long, union or not.

Lol, teachers and firefighters get paid on a preset negotiated scale almost always set up by years of service and possibly training, through union negotiations. It has little to no affect on how well you do your job. Hollywood is the closest example to the NFL where a union negotiates for people that can then cut their own deal. There are not many other fields like this, and frankly there should be none if they want to use laws created for those that could only have power by being represented by a "group" of like workers.

 

[CalBear]

I'll agree to disagree on this point. Miners and other early Union laborers had few options for a living at all, the NFL players have plenty.

So do the owners. If they don't like the NFL, they can take their franchise somewhere else.

Even the most liberal estimates place NFL profits at numbers lower than typical for businesses of their size, so arguments that they are "abusing" players financially are beyond ridiculous. If anything, the raw numbers suggest the opposite.

What, the numbers which suggest that the typical NFL franchise has more than doubled in value in the past 10 years in a down economy? (Aside from any profits taken). The Dow is pretty much where it was in 2000, and the NASDAQ is down 30% in that time frame, so it looks like relative to "typical" businesses the NFL franchises are doing great.

 

[Orange Crush]

Maurile, a question for you:We all have assumed that the draft this year is OK because it was negotiated in the last CBA (alreday covered), but the players about to be drafted were not party to those negotiations. While no draftees are ever a party, don't they imply their consent by declaring themselves eligible and by the recognition of the fact that the NFL has negotiated a deal whereby they won't hire anyone "non-union"? IE: The players agree to join the union by declaring their intent to play for the NFL?With that in mind, if there is no Union, then the draftees have not consented to anything. If then their only path to the NFL is via the draft, wouldn't THIS year's draft be illegal in the absence of a players union? IE: IF the union is truly defunct, than no agreement it made on behalf of the draftees is enforceable, since the draftees did not themselves have a say in the negotiations that resulted in this draft, nor are even able to join the Union which made the agreement (thereby implying consent)?It seems to me that by holding a draft, BOTH the NFL and the executives of the last NFLPA which agreed to the last CBA place themselves in a position of liability unless a new CBA is made with an actual Union. I don't see how the agreement to have a draft this year will hold any legal weight/relevance sans a Union recertification and eventual CBA (whether that new CBA contains a future draft provision is immaterial...the existance of a Union at draft time and progress towards a CBA is what's relevant.)Please clarify??????? Couldn't it then be argued that the NFLPA had a legal obligation to remain a Union until at least AFTER the draft?

The legality of drafts that are agreed to in collective bargaining agreements isn't based on the incoming players' (implied or express) consent. It's based on the right of the union to negotiate terms that apply to prospective hires as well as to existing employees (as long as it does so in good faith).

So does it end when the draft ends or does it extend to the signing of the draftees?

I'm sure that may very well end up being decided in court. If I'm a player agent and my client goes much lower in the draft than I think he should, I'm ignoring the drafting team's exclusive rights to my player in the absence of a new CBA. Instead I attempt to open up negotiations with all 32 teams, and have a lawsuit ready to go once any team announces that the drafting team has exclusive negotiating rights to my client.

 

[az_prof]

I don't think the Owners really care about this round that much. They had to know this judge was likely to side with the players, and the Owners will now appeal to a randomly selected three judge panel picked from an appellate court that consists of 11 Conservatives and 3 Liberals, which are likely to side with the Owners and overturn the lower court ruling. If it makes it to the US Supreme Court, the 5-4 panel is considered pro-Owner and would likely uphold the Appellate Court ruling. So why waste resources arguing in this lower court. Just let the lady rule and let's move to the Appeals Court.

This idea that somehow this is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue is really mistaken. There are issues like that: abortion, campaigns contributions (Citizens United), Bush v Gore. But this isn't one of them. The NFL is so clearly and obviously in violation of anti-trust that there is no court that will rule in their favor. It isn't "conservative" to favor businesses that do not operate within the rules of capitalism. The bottom line is that not allowing players the freedom to compete in the open market and teams to compete for their services freely is a clear violation of the most basic premises of free market economics. I would say that a conservative should oppose the past practice EVEN more than a liberal.

 

[az_prof]

OK...but it's a differant "victim". And I can't wrap my head around calling an NFL player, with an average salary of 2.7 MILLION dollars a financial victim.

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

I'll agree to disagree on this point. Miners and other early Union laborers had few options for a living at all, the NFL players have plenty. Even the most liberal estimates place NFL profits at numbers lower than typical for businesses of their size, so arguments that they are "abusing" players financially are beyond ridiculous. If anything, the raw numbers suggest the opposite. The truth is that the normal "moral code" and "labor laws" simply don't work as equitably and reasonably in this scenario.I'm not arguing law here. I'm arguing against the might makes right mindset. Players have the might based on law...doesn't make them automatically "right". They have the might because virtually all of the best practices of the NFL are counter to trust and labor laws. The law doesn't easily distinguish the purpose and reasonableness of those counter-policies, giving the NFLPA an abnormal and unusual weapon in their labor negotiations. THIS Union holds more power than is reasonable in negotiation.

You make NO sense. Basically, the players are in the wrong because they're in the right legally.??? What rationale or critia would you suggest is greater than the law in terms of the "reasonableness of those counter-policies"? If it isn't the law, what? And what criteria do you use to claim the Union "holds more power than is reasonable in negotiation"? The fact that they are legally correct? That's insane. Basically, you don't like the outcome so you claim that the players have too much power. If the Owners want more power, they should get on the right side of the law. It's that simple. What are they teaching the kids these days?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This idea that somehow this is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue is really mistaken. There are issues like that: abortion, campaigns contributions (Citizens United), Bush v Gore. But this isn't one of them. The NFL is so clearly and obviously in violation of anti-trust that there is no court that will rule in their favor. It isn't "conservative" to favor businesses that do not operate within the rules of capitalism. The bottom line is that not allowing players the freedom to compete in the open market and teams to compete for their services freely is a clear violation of the most basic premises of free market economics. I would say that a conservative should oppose the past practice EVEN more than a liberal.

Man that's a

 

[massraider]

The notion that the NFL players union has too much power must seem really comical to the NBA and MLB players association.

 

[az_prof]

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

Classic prolabor view. Unions were and normally are representing individuals that do not have the power to negotiate on their own, thus the power of a group (union). Your last line is such a joke in the same line with defending unions. In normal unions you forgo what you as an individual could possibly make through hard work, ingenuity, drive, etc. You get the same as the person that doesn't give a bleep, no matter how much more productive you might be. That is part of the examples given earlier about the abuse of laws that were never created for this type of "union", let alone these type of businesses. The NFLPA is anything but a normal union or classic labor organization.

No. What he wrote is not "classic prolabor view." It is a legal and logical view. It doesn't matter if one party to a contract make 2 million or 2 dollars--the law governs how contracts are established. And collusion is both illegal and immoral. It doesn't matter if the collusion leads to a millionaire (player) being cheated or a middle class worker (teacher or fire fighter) being cheated. If you collude you break the law. Plain and simple. That has nothing to do with being pro-union. It has everything to do with being Capitalistic. Capitalism only works where the rule of law is observed and where all parties to a contract operate under comparable rules.

 

[Hoosier16]

Maurile, a question for you:We all have assumed that the draft this year is OK because it was negotiated in the last CBA (alreday covered), but the players about to be drafted were not party to those negotiations. While no draftees are ever a party, don't they imply their consent by declaring themselves eligible and by the recognition of the fact that the NFL has negotiated a deal whereby they won't hire anyone "non-union"? IE: The players agree to join the union by declaring their intent to play for the NFL?With that in mind, if there is no Union, then the draftees have not consented to anything. If then their only path to the NFL is via the draft, wouldn't THIS year's draft be illegal in the absence of a players union? IE: IF the union is truly defunct, than no agreement it made on behalf of the draftees is enforceable, since the draftees did not themselves have a say in the negotiations that resulted in this draft, nor are even able to join the Union which made the agreement (thereby implying consent)?It seems to me that by holding a draft, BOTH the NFL and the executives of the last NFLPA which agreed to the last CBA place themselves in a position of liability unless a new CBA is made with an actual Union. I don't see how the agreement to have a draft this year will hold any legal weight/relevance sans a Union recertification and eventual CBA (whether that new CBA contains a future draft provision is immaterial...the existance of a Union at draft time and progress towards a CBA is what's relevant.)Please clarify??????? Couldn't it then be argued that the NFLPA had a legal obligation to remain a Union until at least AFTER the draft?

The legality of drafts that are agreed to in collective bargaining agreements isn't based on the incoming players' (implied or express) consent. It's based on the right of the union to negotiate terms that apply to prospective hires as well as to existing employees (as long as it does so in good faith).

So does it end when the draft ends or does it extend to the signing of the draftees?

I'm sure that may very well end up being decided in court. If I'm a player agent and my client goes much lower in the draft than I think he should, I'm ignoring the drafting team's exclusive rights to my player in the absence of a new CBA. Instead I attempt to open up negotiations with all 32 teams, and have a lawsuit ready to go once any team announces that the drafting team has exclusive negotiating rights to my client.

So if the rules from the old CBA are applied and the drafting team retains exclusive rights, would they also be required to pay the minimum salary from the old CBA or would they be able to follow any salary rules implemented by the NFL owners from the post CBA era(i.e. - no salary minimum)?

 

[Orange Crush]

So does it end when the draft ends or does it extend to the signing of the draftees?

I'm sure that may very well end up being decided in court. If I'm a player agent and my client goes much lower in the draft than I think he should, I'm ignoring the drafting team's exclusive rights to my player in the absence of a new CBA. Instead I attempt to open up negotiations with all 32 teams, and have a lawsuit ready to go once any team announces that the drafting team has exclusive negotiating rights to my client.

So if the rules from the old CBA are applied and the drafting team retains exclusive rights, would they also be required to pay the minimum salary from the old CBA or would they be able to follow any salary rules implemented by the NFL owners from the post CBA era(i.e. - no salary minimum)?

The old CBA authorizes the 2011 draft. It is rather vague on whether all of the other rules applied to incoming rookies are also authorized by the old CBA. I'm sure the owners will argue that they are, and the players will argue they aren't, and they will go to court. In the meantime, once the lockout is lifted and there is no stay, the NFL can issue new rules for the 2012 season that all teams must abide by. That would include things like the drafting teams having exclusive negotiating rights to the players they select this week. But any such declaration leads to another lawsuit. A new CBA makes this go away. One that will now be negotiated under conditions much more in favor of the players.

 

[kingmalaki]

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

Classic prolabor view. Unions were and normally are representing individuals that do not have the power to negotiate on their own, thus the power of a group (union). Your last line is such a joke in the same line with defending unions. In normal unions you forgo what you as an individual could possibly make through hard work, ingenuity, drive, etc. You get the same as the person that doesn't give a bleep, no matter how much more productive you might be. That is part of the examples given earlier about the abuse of laws that were never created for this type of "union", let alone these type of businesses. The NFLPA is anything but a normal union or classic labor organization.

No. What he wrote is not "classic prolabor view." It is a legal and logical view. It doesn't matter if one party to a contract make 2 million or 2 dollars--the law governs how contracts are established. And collusion is both illegal and immoral. It doesn't matter if the collusion leads to a millionaire (player) being cheated or a middle class worker (teacher or fire fighter) being cheated. If you collude you break the law. Plain and simple. That has nothing to do with being pro-union. It has everything to do with being Capitalistic. Capitalism only works where the rule of law is observed and where all parties to a contract operate under comparable rules.

The law doesn't stop being the law just because someone gets a bigger paycheck.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'm expecting that anything happening between now and the time the appeal is heard, will be temporary. After all avenues are exhausted, and everyone knows for certain where and with who the leverage lies, there will be a new CBA.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You've made your position clear, but it's not supported either by law or by moral code. If the average player is worth $5 million, and the owners have colluded to set the amount they'll pay at $2.7 million and are pocketing the difference, the player's rights are being violated. The fact that he still makes "enough" by some utilitarian definition doesn't change the moral equation; he is being cheated out of something he deserves and has earned.

Classic prolabor view. Unions were and normally are representing individuals that do not have the power to negotiate on their own, thus the power of a group (union). Your last line is such a joke in the same line with defending unions. In normal unions you forgo what you as an individual could possibly make through hard work, ingenuity, drive, etc. You get the same as the person that doesn't give a bleep, no matter how much more productive you might be. That is part of the examples given earlier about the abuse of laws that were never created for this type of "union", let alone these type of businesses. The NFLPA is anything but a normal union or classic labor organization.

No. What he wrote is not "classic prolabor view." It is a legal and logical view. It doesn't matter if one party to a contract make 2 million or 2 dollars--the law governs how contracts are established. And collusion is both illegal and immoral. It doesn't matter if the collusion leads to a millionaire (player) being cheated or a middle class worker (teacher or fire fighter) being cheated. If you collude you break the law. Plain and simple. That has nothing to do with being pro-union. It has everything to do with being Capitalistic. Capitalism only works where the rule of law is observed and where all parties to a contract operate under comparable rules.

The law doesn't stop being the law just because someone gets a bigger paycheck.

 

[Football Critic]

This idea that somehow this is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue is really mistaken. There are issues like that: abortion, campaigns contributions (Citizens United), Bush v Gore. But this isn't one of them. The NFL is so clearly and obviously in violation of anti-trust that there is no court that will rule in their favor. It isn't "conservative" to favor businesses that do not operate within the rules of capitalism. The bottom line is that not allowing players the freedom to compete in the open market and teams to compete for their services freely is a clear violation of the most basic premises of free market economics. I would say that a conservative should oppose the past practice EVEN more than a liberal.

Man that's a

Your right it wasnt really a "liberal vs. conservative" issue, but more of the fact her decision was based off her own personal gain and beliefs in some capacity. I wish I could truly believe it was based on law, but I cant.

 

[Football Critic]

DSmith will be on Mike and Mike at 9:30 est, at least he can tell us what the players direction will be now.

Shefty has also reported with the discussions of lawyers and people invloved, the ruling was written to be appeal proof. She wrote it with the intent to make sure her appeal can not be overturned.

Lester Munson, ESPN Legal guru, said "This was the dream scenerio for the players." and "the ruling was not drafted for the lawyers, players, owners, or fans...but for the 8th circuit court so it can not be overturned."

Statement that stood out to me was, people close to Shefty who know the law say: "The ruling given by Judge Nelson, makes the league WISH they had Judge Doty in this case."

Just to let you know what some are saying with knowledge on this situation.

"I love the irony a woman is controlling the NFL." - Mike Golic...funny!

BUT CAN WE JUST GET THE SEASON STARTED!

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

DSmith will be on Mike and Mike at 9:30 est, at least he can tell us what the players direction will be now.Shefty has also reported with the discussions of lawyers and people invloved, the ruling was written to be appeal proof. She wrote it with the intent to make sure her appeal can not be overturned.Lester Munson, ESPN Legal guru, said "This was the dream scenerio for the players." and "the ruling was not drafted for the lawyers, players, owners, or fans...but for the 8th circuit court so it can not be overturned."Statement that stood out to me was, people close to Shefty who know the law say: "The ruling given by Judge Nelson, makes the league WISH they had Judge Doty in this case." Just to let you know what some are saying with knowledge on this situation."I love the irony a woman is controlling the NFL." - Mike Golic...funny!BUT CAN WE JUST GET THE SEASON STARTED!

Good for her. The owners and players better wake up or the courts are going to destroy their business. Lets get back to the table and get something done

 

[Football Critic]

DSmith will be on Mike and Mike at 9:30 est, at least he can tell us what the players direction will be now.Shefty has also reported with the discussions of lawyers and people invloved, the ruling was written to be appeal proof. She wrote it with the intent to make sure her appeal can not be overturned.Lester Munson, ESPN Legal guru, said "This was the dream scenerio for the players." and "the ruling was not drafted for the lawyers, players, owners, or fans...but for the 8th circuit court so it can not be overturned."Statement that stood out to me was, people close to Shefty who know the law say: "The ruling given by Judge Nelson, makes the league WISH they had Judge Doty in this case." Just to let you know what some are saying with knowledge on this situation."I love the irony a woman is controlling the NFL." - Mike Golic...funny!BUT CAN WE JUST GET THE SEASON STARTED!

Good for her. The owners and players better wake up or the courts are going to destroy their business. Lets get back to the table and get something done

The NFL Exec VP will be on Mike and Mike after DeMaurice Smith at 9:45 am est, we can hear both sides the day after...I normally dislike the media for the most part, but when they allow us to hear the actual words from the sources mouth, I love em'.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Assuming this isn't overturned on appeal (and I haven't seen anyone yet who suggested that there's much chance of that), this is pretty much the worst-case scenario for the owners and exactly what they should have been worried about from the start.

So the question is: what do the players extract from the owners in the new CBA?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Assuming this isn't overturned on appeal (and I haven't seen anyone yet who suggested that there's much chance of that), this is pretty much the worst-case scenario for the owners and exactly what they should have been worried about from the start.So the question is: what do the players extract from the owners in the new CBA?

The owners must be getting bad advice from their "greatest lawyer ever" guy. It was pretty clear that once the 4 billion was gone and the player de-certed and when backto minnesota court they were screwed. If everyone else see's it why dont they?

 

[3nOut]

The players should be careful what they ask for. They might get exactly that.

 

[renesauz]

You make NO sense. Basically, the players are in the wrong because they're in the right legally.??? What rationale or critia would you suggest is greater than the law in terms of the "reasonableness of those counter-policies"? If it isn't the law, what? And what criteria do you use to claim the Union "holds more power than is reasonable in negotiation"? The fact that they are legally correct? That's insane. Basically, you don't like the outcome so you claim that the players have too much power. If the Owners want more power, they should get on the right side of the law. It's that simple.

What are they teaching the kids these days?

No kid here. My basic statement is simple enough for anyone to get: JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.The NFL violates a number of labor laws because those violations make their business stronger, more valuable, and more profitable. At the same time, the NFL shares those profits with a Union, so that the employees benefit from it. But the employees in this case have taken advantage of the situation, and are extorting the owners, wanting a share of REVENUES (not profits) that these businessmen have determined is unhealthy for their business.

Too many of us have assumed that the players care about profitability and the FUTURE of the sport. They don't...not one bit. IN fact, that's what makes this unique. These players care only for their own pockets, not those of QB X drafted hired into the league 15 years from now when the NFL is a shell of it's former self.

The power the players union has is exceptional in labor negotiations. It is, IMHO, an unacceptable reversal bordering on extortion. The fact that it's "legal" is immaterial. THE LAW IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

You make NO sense. Basically, the players are in the wrong because they're in the right legally.??? What rationale or critia would you suggest is greater than the law in terms of the "reasonableness of those counter-policies"? If it isn't the law, what? And what criteria do you use to claim the Union "holds more power than is reasonable in negotiation"? The fact that they are legally correct? That's insane. Basically, you don't like the outcome so you claim that the players have too much power. If the Owners want more power, they should get on the right side of the law. It's that simple.

What are they teaching the kids these days?

No kid here. My basic statement is simple enough for anyone to get: JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.The NFL violates a number of labor laws because those violations make their business stronger, more valuable, and more profitable. At the same time, the NFL shares those profits with a Union, so that the employees benefit from it. But the employees in this case have taken advantage of the situation, and are extorting the owners, wanting a share of REVENUES (not profits) that these businessmen have determined is unhealthy for their business.

Too many of us have assumed that the players care about profitability and the FUTURE of the sport. They don't...not one bit. IN fact, that's what makes this unique. These players care only for their own pockets, not those of QB X drafted hired into the league 15 years from now when the NFL is a shell of it's former self.

The power the players union has is exceptional in labor negotiations. It is, IMHO, an unacceptable reversal bordering on extortion. The fact that it's "legal" is immaterial. THE LAW IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

Last I checked Rene the owners opted out of the deal, the players were happy with the status quo. Now managerment can try any tactic necessary to get the upper hand as can the eomployees.

basicalyl right now IMO both sides look really bad and the owners look more foolish with each ruling the court will give.

Time to get back to collective bargaining. Pronto

 

[roadkill1292]

Assuming this isn't overturned on appeal (and I haven't seen anyone yet who suggested that there's much chance of that), this is pretty much the worst-case scenario for the owners and exactly what they should have been worried about from the start.So the question is: what do the players extract from the owners in the new CBA?

It was my impression that the players were generally pretty content with the status quo of the old CBA. But if this decision holds up (and I think there's a long row to hoe legally yet), then they'll be pretty well positioned to extract some extra juice in return for a minor reduction in the cap percentage. They may take a shot at relaxing franchise player rules or length of service required before free agency, for example.I think they'll recognize the value of a salary cap and not issue any challenge there. And I also think they'll leave the draft alone -- that challenge will come from another quarter.

 

[Football Critic]

You make NO sense. Basically, the players are in the wrong because they're in the right legally.??? What rationale or critia would you suggest is greater than the law in terms of the "reasonableness of those counter-policies"? If it isn't the law, what? And what criteria do you use to claim the Union "holds more power than is reasonable in negotiation"? The fact that they are legally correct? That's insane. Basically, you don't like the outcome so you claim that the players have too much power. If the Owners want more power, they should get on the right side of the law. It's that simple.

What are they teaching the kids these days?

No kid here. My basic statement is simple enough for anyone to get: JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.The NFL violates a number of labor laws because those violations make their business stronger, more valuable, and more profitable. At the same time, the NFL shares those profits with a Union, so that the employees benefit from it. But the employees in this case have taken advantage of the situation, and are extorting the owners, wanting a share of REVENUES (not profits) that these businessmen have determined is unhealthy for their business.

Too many of us have assumed that the players care about profitability and the FUTURE of the sport. They don't...not one bit. IN fact, that's what makes this unique. These players care only for their own pockets, not those of QB X drafted hired into the league 15 years from now when the NFL is a shell of it's former self.

The power the players union has is exceptional in labor negotiations. It is, IMHO, an unacceptable reversal bordering on extortion. The fact that it's "legal" is immaterial. THE LAW IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

Last I checked Rene the owners opted out of the deal, the players were happy with the status quo. Now managerment can try any tactic necessary to get the upper hand as can the eomployees.

basicalyl right now IMO both sides look really bad and the owners look more foolish with each ruling the court will give.

Time to get back to collective bargaining. Pronto

How can anyone in the NFL players or owners think this going to court would have really been good for anyone, I just want to see helmets collide, screw all this mess.

 

[roadkill1292]

You make NO sense. Basically, the players are in the wrong because they're in the right legally.??? What rationale or critia would you suggest is greater than the law in terms of the "reasonableness of those counter-policies"? If it isn't the law, what? And what criteria do you use to claim the Union "holds more power than is reasonable in negotiation"? The fact that they are legally correct? That's insane. Basically, you don't like the outcome so you claim that the players have too much power. If the Owners want more power, they should get on the right side of the law. It's that simple.

What are they teaching the kids these days?

No kid here. My basic statement is simple enough for anyone to get: JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.The NFL violates a number of labor laws because those violations make their business stronger, more valuable, and more profitable. At the same time, the NFL shares those profits with a Union, so that the employees benefit from it. But the employees in this case have taken advantage of the situation, and are extorting the owners, wanting a share of REVENUES (not profits) that these businessmen have determined is unhealthy for their business.

Too many of us have assumed that the players care about profitability and the FUTURE of the sport. They don't...not one bit. IN fact, that's what makes this unique. These players care only for their own pockets, not those of QB X drafted hired into the league 15 years from now when the NFL is a shell of it's former self.

The power the players union has is exceptional in labor negotiations. It is, IMHO, an unacceptable reversal bordering on extortion. The fact that it's "legal" is immaterial. THE LAW IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

Last I checked Rene the owners opted out of the deal, the players were happy with the status quo. Now managerment can try any tactic necessary to get the upper hand as can the eomployees.

basicalyl right now IMO both sides look really bad and the owners look more foolish with each ruling the court will give.

Time to get back to collective bargaining. Pronto

How can anyone in the NFL players or owners think this going to court would have really been good for anyone, I just want to see helmets collide, screw all this mess.

This probably isn't the thread for you, then.But to address your statement, change doesn't necessarily have to mean "bad." We might get some policies out of this that will make the NFL even more interesting to watch.

 

[roarlions]

No kid here. My basic statement is simple enough for anyone to get: JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

The NFL violates a number of labor laws because those violations make their business stronger, more valuable, and more profitable. At the same time, the NFL shares those profits with a Union, so that the employees benefit from it. But the employees in this case have taken advantage of the situation, and are extorting the owners, wanting a share of REVENUES (not profits) that these businessmen have determined is unhealthy for their business.

Too many of us have assumed that the players care about profitability and the FUTURE of the sport. They don't...not one bit. IN fact, that's what makes this unique. These players care only for their own pockets, not those of QB X drafted hired into the league 15 years from now when the NFL is a shell of it's former self.

The power the players union has is exceptional in labor negotiations. It is, IMHO, an unacceptable reversal bordering on extortion. The fact that it's "legal" is immaterial. THE LAW IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

Doesn't the input to a final product usually get paid for out of revenues, not profits? The players are obviously an input to what fans pay to watch, which is a football game. So their compensation should come from revenues, not profits.As far as the players not caring about the future of the league, no evidence is ever presented to back up this statement. The players union was decertified in the past and could have stayed that way, forcing the league to operate under the decisions reached in previous antitrust cases. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the players union did certify itself and agreed to a series of CBAs that helped the league succeed as much as it has over the past 10 - 20 years. If you think that the current group of players is different than the group involved at the time of the previous decertification, please provide some evidence.

While you are correct that the law is not always "morally" correct, it is the law. The Supreme Court has addressed the idea of whether other pro sports leagues can receive an antitrust exemption similar to that of MLB and the Court rejected the idea. So please stop telling us how immoral the law is (we all get your point of view by now) and focus on getting the law changed in Congress. Unless the current courts are willing to ignore precedence, there isn't much hope for the NFL owners unless Congress intervenes at some point.

 

[renesauz]

Doesn't the input to a final product usually get paid for out of revenues, not profits? The players are obviously an input to what fans pay to watch, which is a football game. So their compensation should come from revenues, not profits.

Certainly, but common sense dictates that the revenue % would not then be a constantly rising number. The hard truth is that if other costs rise, the players revenue % HAS to fall in order to maintain profitability. The players refuse to go backwards in % simply because the NFL isn't losing money yet. They are demanding proof when the proof is self-evidant. Other costs related to the economy are blatantly obvious and don't require a line by line expense report, because we can ALL see them.In other words, to keep the last CBA arrangement, the players pay would continue to rise while the owners PROFITS remain stagnant or continue to fall. Why should the owners % of revenue fall while the players' rises (or remains stagnant)? How is THAT fair? The players deny this fact when it's obvious. The fact that it's obvious makes the demands for a detailed expense report unreasonable, because the players have already shown that they will manipulate those figures in any way possible to support their position, and criticize every decision made publicly.

Now, we've debated these things before, and it's certainly a debateable position. What's not debateable are these facts:

1. The NFL can not legally operate as it has in the past without a CBA.

2. The players have the POWER to destroy the NFL as we know it.

3. A lockout was not a nuclear option, but decertification is.

I am NOT OK with a union holding its bosses by the nuts, any union, anywhere. That is NOT a free market, despite insistances to the contrary.

The owners are NOT innocent. If they gave up real money in the TV deal to buy lockout insurance, the players should receive treble damages. But "greed" is not solely on the owners side of the table. Too many guys on the players side are too quick to label the owners greedy without looking harder at their precious players.

 

[fatness]

This idea that somehow this is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue is really mistaken. There are issues like that: abortion, campaigns contributions (Citizens United), Bush v Gore. But this isn't one of them. The NFL is so clearly and obviously in violation of anti-trust that there is no court that will rule in their favor. It isn't "conservative" to favor businesses that do not operate within the rules of capitalism. The bottom line is that not allowing players the freedom to compete in the open market and teams to compete for their services freely is a clear violation of the most basic premises of free market economics. I would say that a conservative should oppose the past practice EVEN more than a liberal.