As the potential landmark antitrust case involving the NFL continues to work through the early stages of its trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the league will be facing opposition beyond American Needle, the company challenging the league’s exclusive headgear contract with Reebok.
The Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice also are lining up against the NFL.
Both agencies, per Darren Rovell of CNBC, have filed “amicus curiae” briefs in the case. It’s Latin for “friend of the court.” But, as a practical matter, it’s something that’s done when a non-party to a lawsuit hopes to act as its own friend, cramming its way into a decision that might be adverse to the non-party’s interests.
Look for the NFL Players Association also to file an amicus brief, if for no reason other than to ensure that any outcome in the pending case won’t be used by the league as a sword in labor negotiations. Absent the application of the antitrust laws, the NFLPA’s would lose one of the primary tactics in an environment without a CBA (i.e., decertification of the union and the filing of a lawsuit alleging that the imposition of rules regarding player salaries, free agency, and the draft by the 32 teams violates antitrust laws).
In the pending litigation, the league hopes to prove that the 32 teams operate as a “single entity,” and not a series of competing businesses. The NFLPA and others fear that, if the league prevails in this case, the league will attempt to rely upon the “single entity” concept in other situations.
Except, of course, when it’s in the league’s interest to claim that the 32 franchises are separate and distinct. This position often is advanced when someone contends that an employee of one of the teams also is an employee of the league itself.
Regardless of how it all shakes out, the league should not be allowed to have it both ways.
Goodell is going to beat you up after Crowder and Rex Ryan are done with you.
“…allowed to have it both ways.”
Like a bisexual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddjK30rJXg
So if they are one entity, Czar Roger could decide that if a game is not sold out, he could blackout the entire country, thereby forcing us to buy Jacksonville, Dallas, and Detroit tickets if we want to watch our local team. Wow the NFL thinks of everything…..
I have to point out that conglomerates (major corporations made up of smaller owned companies) routinely conduct business on behalf of all its subsidiaries as one entity, however an employee of one subsidiariy is not considered an employee of all subsidiaries or the holding company that owns all the smaller companies.
The point is regardless of the anti-trust case is resolved, I do not believe it will have any impact on the fact that players are employees of the 32 franchised teams and not employees of the league itself.
After using the word franchise, I realized an even better example. Lets look at Subway. Subway corporate represents and conducts business including tv marketing on behalf of all franchises, but an employee of your local Subway franchise is NOT an employee of Subway corporate. Just like in the NFL, Subway corporate allows franchises atonomy in some areas but sets certain policies all franchises must follow. Same for McDonalds, same for Chick-fil-A, etc.
Bottomline, players will remain employees of the franchise they sign their contract with and not considered employees of the league and this shouldn’t even be brought up as an issue anymore.
I heard Goodell likes people to call him Benito in private.
Hail2ThaRedskins,
Good stuff! You seem to have a fair grasp of this so…
iyo how does, or will a decision either way, effect the NFL , teams and players?
Don’t be a F’n Hog Farmer and not respond!
“…allowed to have it both ways.”
Ya, that’s only allowed in MN when its a Viking player at stake.
JohnNdallas,
My response was strictly related to the fact the players are employees of the teams and not the league and that the situation will not change regardless of the outcome of the current anti-trust case.
Simply put, the issue of players employed by teams and not the league is NOT an issue in this case. It is a very common employent structure throughout the business world in this country that is not relevent to anti trust exemptions and it isn’t changing anytime soon.
I have absolutely no knowledge on how the this case will effect the league, teams, and players. I assume that even an individual with more knowledge in anti-trust laws would be hard pressed to even answer your question considering that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely issue a very lengthy written decision that will indentify how broad or how narrow their decision would apply.
The only point I am making is these are seperate issues. It is not an either or situation.
There I responded.
Ok Thanks!
Congrats on not being a F’n Hog Farmer.