Your question is kind of what I was driving at (though you were probably more clear).

Unlike other businesses, sports leagues need “competition” and therefore must abide by a common set of rules (which seems to me to be collusive).

Other businesses seek to eliminate competition as to gain greater market share and thus work independently to achieve their own gains — so it doesn’t matter what happens to any of the other competitors.

The reason I ask is this… Is it even possible to have a sports league without collusion?

If the answer is no… Then no matter what happens, the NFL will be screwed, because the players can be both a union and a trade organization. It will just depend on their needs.

I do not see how this could be constitutional if it is physically impossible for the NFL to not collude.

Thanks for the additional breakdown.

If, absent a union providing a colluding entity for the players, why couldn’t the teams choose to make their own schedules (I know it’s absurd but bear with me), or play games under different sets of game rules (based on agreement between the two entities [teams]).

My real question: since teams must now act as independent entities and not in collusion (if I understand your post correctly), why can’t they change any of the rules they wish to operate their business under — not just the ones which govern compensation and their relationship with the players.

Also, couldn’t teams make players “contractors” rather than employees? I know there is a whole other set of law regarding this condition, but I’m just wondering.

Ultimately, this would result in anarchy and a very different “league structure”, but could they do it???

You are comparing apples to oranges. The model that the NFL uses is beneficial because they are trying to ensure that the teams remain competitive. The points that make this different from managing a society is that the players that make it to the NFL are already super achievers, in their profession, and goals and rewards are not entirely based on money. It is also based on the fact that they are competing in a sport and that they want to achieve fame, recognition, honor and championships.

Money is not the sole value in the football world, and there are a very limited amount of people that are able to produce this particular level of play. Therefore the comparison is fallacy.

I have the solution to this mess. Let Brandon Marshall represent the players, and his wife represent the owners. A pay per view event with all proceeds going to pay lawyer fees!

***
I can beat that….Put Marshall’s wife in the cage with the lawyers. The pay-per-view revenue gets paid to all the stadium employees.

Thank you for the breakdown.. It really does help. Two questions…

What about the teams being considered a franchise of the NFL, like McDonalds?

Would Anti Trust still be applicable if another league existed, other than the NFL?

Fans still lose. These guys are really pissing me off. Maybe I should start following basketball a lot closer.

Don’t.

Guess which union plans to decertify next.

to answer your questions in brief:

- Antitrust law basically says that when you have one entity dominating a marketplace, or multiple entities colluding to dominate a marketplace, they cannot engage in “anti-competitive” practices. The legal basis for this is well established, under a series of antitrust laws. The economic basis for this is that when you have a trust situation, you don’t have “efficient” or “free” market activities.

- Under American Needle, the NFL is seen as 32 entities colluding together. This is all fine from the perspective of labor (there are ramifications for their dealings with 3rd parties such as vendors), so long as there is a Collective Bargaining Agreement in place. Why? Because this represents a joint agreement with all the players, under labor laws, which trump antitrust laws. The theory is: it’s OK if the owners are colluding together, if their workers are also colluding together as part of a union.

- Once that union ceases to exist, ordinary laws apply. What that means is that “anti-competitive” practices, i.e., practices that interfere with the ordinary operations of the market, are illegal. Past precedents have been pretty clear that restrictions on free movement or marketing of labor (which would include the franchise tag, collegiate draft, restricted FA, and probably also the salary cap) are illegal absent a CBA.

- The players have all the leverage right now. They could win everything they are asking for (unrestricted FA, no more salary caps, no more draft). Hopefully they will settle. But honestly, if I were the players, I would now be asking for a lot more than the 2006 CBA, because they have all the bargaining power. They will continue to get paid under the old model, while their lawsuit, which appears almost certain to win, winds its way through the courts.

- Here is where we’ll see the real mettle of DeMaurice Smith and the players. So far, I think the owners have been idiots. They have by far the most owner-friendly model in major sports, and for the sake of a few more dollars, they were pursuing a very reckless legal strategy. Now we’ll see if the players want to be idiots too. They can pursue short term gain, in the form of free agency, etc., things that will make football look a lot more like major league baseball. But I think the success of the NFL has been tied to the parity around the league. I think the players should ask for more than the 2006 CBA (this is the owners’ penalty for stupidity), but stop there and leave the basic model of revenue sharing, salary caps, and the collegiate draft intact.

Mikey B: Too bad, Jerrah. That’s the way it is

Jerry: But I’m not making enough cash. I’ve got this new stadium and I only got $325m from the taxpayers for it!!! How am I going to survive?

Danny S: Let’s take it from the players! Then we’ll have way more money to split between ourselves and everyone’s happy.

Everyone: Yeah!!!!!

Pash: Hey – you guys should opt out of the CBA and then try to get some money from the TV networks in case there’s no season. The players won’t care and even if they do, I know for a fact that we’ll win the court case.

Everyone: Yeah!!!!

Doty: What the heck were you idiots thinking?

Everyone:

Kraft: The players are idiots. I can’t believe that they don’t believe us. Sure we already tried to screw them with the lockout case, but hey – we’re losing money. It’s criminal that they won’t give us everything we want. They’re totally wasting their time with all this litigation.

Everyone: Yay!!!

Nelson: Seriously? You guys are a bunch of pompous $#$#s. Good luck on appeal.

Everyone:

For Christ’s sake. Blow it out your ass.

How is there violation of Anti Trust rules, specifically?

If there is no Union and no CBA… Why can’t the NFL make new rules? Oh, because Anti Trust… This I just do not understand.

Does this ruling help the Brady Anti Trust case? Is it now more likely the Brady case will win?

Enough of the questions.. One thing I do know is… The literature inside the Brady Case is very dangerous to football. I understand some of you hate the big bad owners and many hate the players. (I will not state my stance, due to it being irrelevant to my point) But, the players winning court cases might be good for the short term but very bad for the long term. Please do not be typical Americans and only think short term. Please do not be typical Americans and study the Brady Case literature. I will sacrifice, because that’s what us Americans use to do, this season for the overall strength and longevity of the sport.

“5% of the players will make 95% of the money. Hope they are happy now.”

And that would make the players system different from the real world how, exactly?

Isn’t THAT the system the owners made their money off of? The economic model our country currently operates under where the rich get richer and the little guys get less and less?

Are you saying that a distribution of the overall income, from top to bottom, that benefits the lower tiered workers, perhaps by taking a little from the upper tiered workers and owners, would be better overall for a system?

Hmmmm….and a union did this, originally? With a negotiated CBA? And this was GOOD for the NFL? Could it be possible it would be good for the rest of the world, too? My god! What a discovery!!!

Ray Lewis and other “leaders” (ahem) should take this over and organize the players. Give the rookie salary cap to the NFL, sprinkle some out to the veterans and make a few common sense moves in addition, and it is over. Once lawyers get involved, you are screwed. I have been dealing with em for so long it makes my head spin. They love to bill, file motions, talk, and make no deals. I vote for Cromartie to be the new president of the union.

Certainly, pre-existing contracts might specify a number of games but, now they are not bound by a CBA, surely it cannot be illegal for the owners to agree to stage more games. They might have to pick up extra players, to cover for those contracted for only 16 regular season games, but is there any way players could challenge such a move.

How can any judge possibly think the players’ decertification of the union is not a sham ?

This – and the Needle case – could be really bad for the league if the union never decertifies.

Every rookie coming into the league could sue for anti-trust if they couldn’t play for any team they want.

It would be even worse than MLB because MLB has the anti-trust exemption.

If I ran that league, I would look at what lost that Needle case and reorganize the league into a form that would win it.

They need to be organized into a single business entity.

Absent the CBA there can be no maximum or minimum roster sizes, but surely the teams don’t have to sign free agents. Sure, in the past teams have had more signed players than they do now, but there really is no need to start free agency until just before the games.

Sure the lockout has officially ended but do the teams really have to do anything now that there aren’t any actual rules to follow? The players could claim collusion if none of the franchises do anything, but each owner could argue that signing contracts under the current climate would be detrimental to their business. Surely a business cannot be forced to take on new employees, only prevented from unlawfully discriminating during the recruitment process when they do.

_____________________

It’s a shame your whole existence is based on your sad politics.
You’d rather be ‘right’ than have football and you’re wrong on both counts.

WTF, take a pill and settle down.