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.