Comments on: Jeff Pash promises victory in American Needle, says it won’t affect CBA talks

By: lawdjayee

lawdjayee — Tue, 25 May 2010 09:33:12 +0000

Stevens took great pains to state that the “single entity” position could not be used for apparel merchandising, but could possibly be used for other kinds of claims. SCOTUS’s decision is very narrowly framed and explicitly leaves other areas where the league could claim (and might prevail) that it is a single entity. That is, Florio’s wrong here.

By: DirtDawg55

DirtDawg55 — Tue, 25 May 2010 07:29:06 +0000

Here’s the rub facing the union. On the one hand, allowing the NFL to act as a “single entity” that is exempt from Section 1 of the Sherman Act, would allow the NFL to negotiate all agreements, licencing and contracts even if the end result was to drive up prices. This is ultimately a good thing for the union because under the current bargaining agreement they share in those higher revenues.
On the other hand, allowing the NFL to act as a single entity could mean the NFL is not subject to collective bargaining rules either and can impose its own labour rules. That’s the part that scares the union to death, which is why they support the legal argument that the NFL is not a single entity.
Their challenge though is no matter what the courts say the NFL will play hardball and get Congress to give them an exemption, just as they already enjoy for TV contracts. They are allowed to negotiate those as a single entity even if it means higher prices to consumers.
Ultimately this is all about how the NFL will get what it wants – either through the courts or through the back halls of Congress. It is not about who is right or wrong.
Mark it down – the NFL does not ultimately lose here. It will get what it wants because its owners have more political power than its players. Beginning, middle and end of story.

By: pancho smith

pancho smith — Tue, 25 May 2010 06:20:15 +0000

Each player signs with an Agent (not the NFLPA) who they pay (how much?) to negotiate on their behalf. Then they pay dues to the NFLPA? How much do they pay? Is it possible that the NFLPA is purely a puppet organization for Agents, who are a very powerful, largely unseen force in the sport?
Hey Florio, how about some reporting on how Agents structure their deals with players and the real impact of Agents on the sport? You’ve written before on some interesting Agent conflict of interest situations. Do Agents have an incentive to keep their guys playing, and if so, how did the economics for last-year’s SF hold-out Crabtree work for his Agent Eugene Parker, for example?

By: Bob Loblaw

Bob Loblaw — Tue, 25 May 2010 00:37:53 +0000

Florio, I respectfully, and completely, disagree.
1) Pash and Levy are lawyers for the NFL, as you know, they are bound to act in the NFL’s best interests. The NFL’s best interest is to be declared a single entity on economic AND labor issues; therefore, when specifically asked about the NFL’s stance on the issue, Levy had to give that answer. However, the fact that a Justice raises an issue in oral argument does not mean that it is at issue in the case. It’s a hypothetical, so, it means nothing. It’s common knowledge that the NFL ultimately wants MLB’s absolute antitrust exemption.
2) “American Needle wasn’t directly about labor.” It’s not at all about labor. You are missing the fact that the NFL, in reality, will settle for an antitrust exemption on economic issues, like hat licensing, and not labor issues (which would never happen).
3) “The single entity defense isn’t available, if the union were to again decertify and again sue the NFL for antitrust violations. Though the league could very well win such a lawsuit…”
This is wrong. If the union decertified, they would bring a collusion claim against the teams. That is a labor law issue. Regardless of the outcome in American Needle, the NFL could argue that it is a single entity since Needle was an economic issue and collusion is a labor issue. However, since that issue was argued in 1987, it probably wouldn’t work. Regardless, it has nothing to do with this case.
4) The league doesn’t lose anything from it’s arsenal of weapons against the players, the lower revenue teams are losing their arsenal against the bigger market teams. That’s the issue. However, the logic in assuming that anyone LOSES anything, when the NFL lost an exemption it never had is confusing. I mean, this was a 9-0 decision, I think DeSmith and the League’s attorneys are savvy enough to know the NFL had no chance.
5) I’m pretty sure you, not the NFLPA, “is making way too much out of the decision.” I hope you adopt a more pragmatic demeanor when discussing this case on PFT.

By: OORashad

OORashad — Mon, 24 May 2010 23:50:46 +0000

So when the NFL says something clearly wrong, you “respectfully disagree” but when it’s DeMaurice Smith and the union that says something off base, the union becomes “unglued.” Interesting

By: thecrazytomato

thecrazytomato — Mon, 24 May 2010 23:44:37 +0000

Just like any big company. They are always trying to find loopholes. We can do this because we are x. Then when X actually becomes a problem with a different scenerio, then they claim they are Y and X doesnt count.