Smith contemplating permanent decertification

[Mr. WEO]

I realize that your ultimate conclusions are not dependent upon the above statement. The idea that an NFL franchise may not be owned by a corporation, however, is a common misperception that even appears in mainstream media articles about the NFL. Although commonly believed, it is factually incorrect.

 

The NFL makes its governing "Constitution and Bylaws" (as amended through 2006) available here:

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

 

Article III, section 3.3, at pages 6/292 through 7/292 of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document, contains numerous provisions that would make no sense at all if a "member" (i.e., the owner of a franchise or club) could not be a corporation. For example:

 

"3.3 (A) Each applicant for membership shall make a written application to the Commissioner. Such application shall describe the type of organization and shall designate the city in which the franchise of the applicant shall be located. Such application shall further describe and contain the following information:

 

(1) The names and addresses of all persons who do or shall own any interest or stock in the applicant . . .

 

(2) A detailed balance sheet of such company . . . A written financial statement shall be required from the applicant and from anyone owning an interest in any applicant, including stockholders and partners;

 

(3) If applicant is a corporation, a certified copy of the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and share certificate shall accompany such application . . ."

 

===============================

 

The misperception about this may stem from Article 3.2, which reads, at page 5/292:

 

"3.2 Any person, association, partnership, corporation or other entity of good repute organized for the purpose of operating a professional football club shall be eligible for membership, except:

 

(A) No corporation, association, partnership, or other entity not operated for profit nor any charitable organization or entity not presently a member of the League shall be eligible for membership."

 

==============================

 

The section 3.2(A) language prohibits nonprofit corporations from becoming members of the NFL, but it has no impact whatsoever on the eligibility for membership of for-profit corporations. The "not presently a member of the League" phrase is some of the language that "grandfathers" the pre-existing community-based ownership situation of the Green Bay Packers.

 

Large publicly owned corporations, like the ones that trade on the stock exchanges, are prohibited from owning NFL franchises not because they are corporations, but because they have more than the maximum number of allowable shareholders as specified elsewhere in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document.

 

So if you own a for-profit corporation with less than the maximum allowable number of shareholders, and you have one shareholder who owns at least 30% of the shares of the corporation (you can aggregate family shares to get to 30% in some situations), that corporation can own an NFL franchise.

 

The Buffalo Bills franchise is owned by Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - a New York corporation for which Ralph Wilson is at least a 30% shareholder, and as far as anyone knows, the only shareholder.

 

http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415664&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

 

Still don't believe it? Take a look at the first page of the Bills' stadium lease here:

 

http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml

 

The introductory paragraph defines the "Bills" (as that term is used in the lease) as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127."

 

The second "Recital" clause of the lease then uses that definition, and reads:

 

"WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the Bills are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ."

 

As the owner of the NFL franchise, Buffalo Bills, Inc. is a party in the Brady v. NFL lawsuit, as evidenced by the corporate disclosure statement filed with the 8th Circuit:

 

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-1898/801649983/

 

Just like the Buffalo Bills, many (though not all) of the NFL clubs are in fact owned by corporations.

 

Again, they ARE corporations, they are not owned by corporations.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Again, they ARE corporations, they are not owned by corporations.

Again, but with emphasis on the key part:

 

http://www.erie.gov/...e/stadium.phtml

 

The introductory paragraph defines the "Bills" (as that term is used in the lease) as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127."

 

The second "Recital" clause of the lease then uses that definition, and reads:

 

"WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the Bills are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ."

 

===========================================

 

The above quoted phrase starting with "WHEREAS" uses the word "Bills," which is defined in the very first paragraph of the lease as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127."

 

As a result, the "WHEREAS" clause reads, if you substitute the full definition for the short-hand term "Bills," as follows:

 

""WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127 are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ."

 

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Are you suggesting that whoever negotiated the stadium lease with Erie County misrepresented the identity of the owner of the team to the County?

Edited May 29, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Mr. WEO]

Again, but with emphasis on the key part:

 

http://www.erie.gov/...e/stadium.phtml

 

The introductory paragraph defines the "Bills" (as that term is used in the lease) as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127."

 

The second "Recital" clause of the lease then uses that definition, and reads:

 

"WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the Bills are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ."

 

===========================================

 

The above quoted phrase starting with "WHEREAS" uses the word "Bills," which is defined in the very first paragraph of the lease as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127."

 

As a result, the "WHEREAS" clause reads, if you substitute the full definition for the short-hand term "Bills," as follows:

 

""WHEREAS, pursuant to its rights as a National Football League franchisee, the BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127 are the owners of the "Buffalo Bills" football team (the "Team") . . ."

 

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Are you suggesting that whoever negotiated the stadium lease with Erie County misrepresented the identity of the owner of the team to the County?

 

Ralph owns the Bills. He incorporated them as The Buffalo Bills Inc. so that the company could run the business of....the Buffalo Bills. That includes signing leases, hiring employees, paying them and merchandising products on behalf of...the Buffalo Bills.

 

 

No corporation has bought a team. Many teams have incorporated-it's how the owner(s) protects his assets. Unless you envisioned Ralph or others writing checks from their personal checking accounts to pay employees, etc.

 

A corporation can't own the plurality of a team. It has to be an individual who owns 30%.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[Malazan]

The more I hear from Smith, the more I wonder about his qualifications. He seems to be more in love with himself then resolving the issue for the players.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Ralph owns the Bills. He incorporated them as The Buffalo Bills Inc. . . .

Solely for the sake of argument, let's say that you got this part right. In context, it's pretty clear that your post uses the word "Bills" to mean the team. To avoid confusion with the lease language (which defines the word differently), here's what you are saying:

 

Ralph owns the team. He incorporated them as the Buffalo Bills, Inc. . . .

 

Let's focus on how things stand at the instant in time immediately after the incorporation takes place. In my world, at that instant in time:

 

1. Buffalo Bills, Inc., a corporation, owns the team - - because when you incorporate a business, the corporation you just created then owns the business; and

 

2. Ralph owns the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - because when the sole owner of a business incorporates it, that person owns the shares of the corporation immediately after it is created - - the newly formed corporation in turn owns the business.

 

These two results are entirely consistent with both the terms of the stadium lease, and with the idea that Ralph Wilson is the controlling shareholder of Buffalo Bills, Inc., a corporation that owns the team.

 

If you don't see it that way, I guess I'll just have to decide whether to believe (a) what I read in a stadium lease involving Erie County, that is posted on an Erie County website, or (b) your description of how things work on Planet WEO.

 

Tough call.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Solely for the sake of argument, let's say that you got this part right. In context, it's pretty clear that your post uses the word "Bills" to mean the team. To avoid confusion with the lease language (which defines the word differently), here's what you are saying:

 

Ralph owns the team. He incorporated them as the Buffalo Bills, Inc. . . .

 

Let's focus on how things stand at the instant in time immediately after the incorporation takes place. In my world, at that instant in time:

 

1. Buffalo Bills, Inc., a corporation, owns the team - - because when you incorporate a business, the corporation you just created then owns the business; and

 

2. Ralph owns the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - because when the sole owner of a business incorporates it, that person owns the shares of the corporation immediately after it is created - - the newly formed corporation in turn owns the business.

 

These two results are entirely consistent with both the terms of the stadium lease, and with the idea that Ralph Wilson is the controlling shareholder of Buffalo Bills, Inc., a corporation that owns the team.

 

If you don't see it that way, I guess I'll just have to decide whether to believe (a) what I read in a stadium lease involving Erie County, that is posted on an Erie County website, or (b) your description of how things work on Planet WEO.

 

Tough call.

Please cease with this.

 

The Buffalo Bills are a company for obvious reasons. Ralph Wilson is the owner of that company.

[Hplarrm]

I blame Tags for this mess. Upshaw had him by the short and curlies forever, and the last deal they made was a "take it or leave it" ultimatum by Upshaw. Tags rammed it through so his legacy wouldn't be tarnished. Well, it did just that. It was not a good deal for the owners.

 

What gets me is that the players' sense of entitlement. They really think taking anything less than what they got the last time is an insult. Not for one nanosecond have any of those doofuses contemplated that they actually got too much in the last contract. It took most of the owners two years to figure out that they screwed themselves when they signed on the dotted line the last time.

 

• Players are NOT "partners" with the owners.
• Players are not entitled to a guaranteed percentage of the owner's revenue.
• Revenue sharing among the teams should be limited to TV revenue and a split of the gate receipts.
• The Cap should be set and governed by only the TV revenue.
• If the decert becomes permanent, an awful lot of guys are going to be playing for a lot less than the current "vet minimum".

That's my opinion and you're entitled to it.

I think wgat you say is almost on target. I think many of the views you lay out simply need to be applied more broadly and then they point to a more fair outcome.

 

For example, I agr3ee with you that the players are NOT entitled to a specific financial outcome! The question is WHY ARE THE NFL TEAM OWNERS ENTITLED TO SOME SPECIFIC FINANCIAL OUTCOME?

[Hplarrm]

I think wgat you say is almost on target. I think many of the views you lay out simply need to be applied more broadly and then they point to a more fair outcome.

 

For example, I agr3ee with you that the players are NOT entitled to a specific financial outcome! The question is WHY ARE THE NFL TEAM OWNERS ENTITLED TO SOME SPECIFIC FINANCIAL OUTCOME?

oOPS ACCIDENTALLY SENT- CONTINUING ON:

 

1. I think neither the players nor the owners have us fans interests at heart. I would be happy to pay my dollars to see the best athletes compete with each other playing the game I love which would almost certainly resemble the NFL game with some health additions which compensate players more fully for wrecking their bodies or minds.

 

I simply so not see why you have such a woody for he current NFL owners. As best as I cn see they simply add a cost as they demand 39.5% of the revenue while adding little that cannot be replaced. They were neede before when only rich guys like Mr. Ralph would put up capital. Today with a proven product the actual capitl is provided by the TV networks.

 

Its been a nice ride with Mr. Ralph, but they have been paid back amply for their initial investments and its hard to feel bad about any losses they would take if decert forced them to negotiate in s free market with individual players as they were the ones who made the business decision to lockout and open themselves up to lawsuit,

 

The challenge for the NFLPA right now is that we need to see an economic model created which rewards the individul and not simply the socialist compact which is today's NFL. The NFLPA benefits most from fostering a free market where new sources of capital sucn as the TV networks, municipalities raising money by selling shares to individuals or eveb through taxpayer levys, or through another set of new rich folk (Pegula, Golisano, Jacobs), the players themselves using their cash to leverage bank loans, or something else create a NewFL which creates a bidding war for the players and then increases NFLPA membership with NewFL players, the remaining BFL players and whatever else gets developed.

 

Green Bay has shown that a municipal based capital production and management system can work.

 

I simply do not see the current NFL team owners or the players as bein ENTITLED to some particular outcone and I think a free market system is probably the best thing to base the NewFL on. The team owners did fine way back when and unless they made bad business moves such as incurring indebtedness and then calling for renegotiation of the contract ealier than they had to created any problems they end up with.

 

As a fam I want football. If the lower court ruling won by the players stood we fans would have football. If the owners position prevails the lockout continurs.

 

Unless Nanker, Mr. Weo or others are the children of Mr. Ralph I see no justification for supporting the current owners as they are stopping us from having football this year. As for the future they seem to deliver little beside raising the costs.

 

A new deal which was organized through the NFLPA which gave half the owners 40% to the players and half to the fans to reduct ticket prices would be great from my perspective.

[Mr. WEO]

Go enjoy the "NewNFL" then and stop plaguing us with this goofy crap.

[Fixxxer]

oOPS ACCIDENTALLY SENT- CONTINUING ON:

 

1. I think neither the players nor the owners have us fans interests at heart. I would be happy to pay my dollars to see the best athletes compete with each other playing the game I love which would almost certainly resemble the NFL game with some health additions which compensate players more fully for wrecking their bodies or minds.

 

I simply so not see why you have such a woody for he current NFL owners. As best as I cn see they simply add a cost as they demand 39.5% of the revenue while adding little that cannot be replaced. They were neede before when only rich guys like Mr. Ralph would put up capital. Today with a proven product the actual capitl is provided by the TV networks.

 

Its been a nice ride with Mr. Ralph, but they have been paid back amply for their initial investments and its hard to feel bad about any losses they would take if decert forced them to negotiate in s free market with individual players as they were the ones who made the business decision to lockout and open themselves up to lawsuit,

 

The challenge for the NFLPA right now is that we need to see an economic model created which rewards the individul and not simply the socialist compact which is today's NFL. The NFLPA benefits most from fostering a free market where new sources of capital sucn as the TV networks, municipalities raising money by selling shares to individuals or eveb through taxpayer levys, or through another set of new rich folk (Pegula, Golisano, Jacobs), the players themselves using their cash to leverage bank loans, or something else create a NewFL which creates a bidding war for the players and then increases NFLPA membership with NewFL players, the remaining BFL players and whatever else gets developed.

 

Green Bay has shown that a municipal based capital production and management system can work.

 

I simply do not see the current NFL team owners or the players as bein ENTITLED to some particular outcone and I think a free market system is probably the best thing to base the NewFL on. The team owners did fine way back when and unless they made bad business moves such as incurring indebtedness and then calling for renegotiation of the contract ealier than they had to created any problems they end up with.

 

As a fam I want football. If the lower court ruling won by the players stood we fans would have football. If the owners position prevails the lockout continurs.

 

Unless Nanker, Mr. Weo or others are the children of Mr. Ralph I see no justification for supporting the current owners as they are stopping us from having football this year. As for the future they seem to deliver little beside raising the costs.

 

A new deal which was organized through the NFLPA which gave half the owners 40% to the players and half to the fans to reduct ticket prices would be great from my perspective.

 

Hplarm, let's speculate that one of your ancestors invented, say, the rubber band. He invented it, patented it and got crazy rich for having such idea. Every rubber band factory that sells rubber bands, give you a percentage for every single rubber band sold.

Obviously, by the time is your time, by right, to cash in, you're filthy rich.

Given that this is an old invention, those factories think that those percentages should not be pay to you anymore because you're already rich, would you be ok with that determination? Would you give up those rights?

[1B4IDie]

Hplarm, let's speculate that one of your ancestors invented, say, the rubber band. He invented it, patented it and got crazy rich for having such idea. Every rubber band factory that sells rubber bands, give you a percentage for every single rubber band sold.

Obviously, by the time is your time, by right, to cash in, you're filthy rich.

Given that this is an old invention, those factories think that those percentages should not be pay to you anymore because you're already rich, would you be ok with that determination? Would you give up those rights?

In your example, companies would not pay the same amount because the free market economy would eventually make rubber bands a commodity after the expiration of the patent.

A company would be free to purchase a rubber band from the most efficient producer of the rubber band.

The NFL is arguing that free market forces of paying a player what ever he is worth an open market should NOT be applied to the NFL. The NFL would like to regulate and control the market value of the players' value.

 

So in your example is it fair for the Rubber Band manufacturer to own a patent for a Rubber Band from now into the end of time and set a state controlled price for the rubber band?

Edited May 31, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[Jeffery Lester]

They the players are going to get what they are asking for. That is totally and utterly screwed. D. Smith I think is worried about his own bottom line and legacy. That is why he refuses to negotiate in any way with the league. He wants to settle in court like any good lawyer. I hope the players now realize that they should have put someone in position that understands the dynamics of the game. Not just the dynamics of a court room. I am so digusted with the players at this time. I truly hope they suffer when they are no longer getting there slave wages. I am almost hoping that the owners keep them out for a whole season and none of them get payed.

[Fixxxer]

In your example, companies would not pay the same amount because the free market economy would eventually make rubber bands a commodity after the expiration of the patent.

A company would be free to purchase a rubber band from the most efficient producer of the rubber band.

The NFL is arguing that free market forces of paying a player what ever he has worth an open market should be be applied to the NFL. The NFL would like to regulate and control the market value of the players value.

 

So in your example is it fair for the Rubber Band manufacturer to own a patent for a Rubber Band from now into the end of time and set a state controlled price for the rubber band?

 

My example was to ilustrate being owner of an idea, development or invention. No matter how rich you are and how much money keeps "getting in", nobody can say, that's it you served your purpose, now leave, you are already a multi-millionaire, like Hplarm is suggesting.

[Hplarrm]

Hplarm, let's speculate that one of your ancestors invented, say, the rubber band. He invented it, patented it and got crazy rich for having such idea. Every rubber band factory that sells rubber bands, give you a percentage for every single rubber band sold.

Obviously, by the time is your time, by right, to cash in, you're filthy rich.

Given that this is an old invention, those factories think that those percentages should not be pay to you anymore because you're already rich, would you be ok with that determination? Would you give up those rights?

It depends upon my specific product as patents laws which apply differ from product to product, For example if my product was a drug and my patent held for me to be the sole producer of my product for a reasonable time until I made back my initial huge investment in development in testing I am quite happy to have made my money back and then some and understand fully that the benefit to society comes from having anybody produce cheaper generics.

 

If my product is a work of art like a song such as Happy Birthday I am confortable with it going into general use and feel no right or need to profit everytime someone sings it at a birthday party.

 

I do not know about the specific product of the rubber band but personally I feel no need to profit from it in perpetuity because I feel that there is a societal answer to the question of how much is too much.

 

If I am the nFLPA I realize that we players are the product and that people are happy to pay to see us and that quite frankly no one wants to pay to see Mr. Ralph and Al Davis in shoulder pads (though this would be humorous to see once. The owners really provide little added value to the game which cannot be easily replaced. The owners had a good ride so personally I am happy to see Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder go away. I feel little moral need to protect their investment particularly after they made the stupid move of lockout the players and denying me and others football when they did not have to.

 

On the other hand do you have some case to make for why anyone would be sympathetic to the owners?

[Hplarrm]

They the players are going to get what they are asking for. That is totally and utterly screwed. D. Smith I think is worried about his own bottom line and legacy. That is why he refuses to negotiate in any way with the league. He wants to settle in court like any good lawyer. I hope the players now realize that they should have put someone in position that understands the dynamics of the game. Not just the dynamics of a court room. I am so digusted with the players at this time. I truly hope they suffer when they are no longer getting there slave wages. I am almost hoping that the owners keep them out for a whole season and none of them get payed.

I actually hope otherwise thar the NFLPA shows the same boldness they showed when they first played tthe decert card which led the the NFL to run kicking and screaming for the players to reunionize in order to allow the socialism of the modern NFL to work.

 

I hope they show the same boldmess when Gene Upshaw dictated to the owners that the salary cap was going to be determined by the total receipts and the amount needed to start with a 6.

 

The owners are simply a cost addition adding 39.5% to the cost of the product when they can easily be replaced by the true sources of capital, the TV nets and their team management can be replaced by hiring football professionals as the Packers did. If 20% of the take went to the players and 20% lowered ticket prices the product and the fans would be much better. Too bad for the owners but the original investors have been richly rewarded and they made their own choice to re-open the deal and to deny you and me the NFL right now.

 

I simply do not understand what you think the owners bring to the gasme which cannot be replaced and make the economic product more efficient' The owners have okace their investment at risk and why you and other feel they have an entitlement to our money when they bring little to the game which cannot be replaced I simply do not see.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I actually hope otherwise thar the NFLPA shows the same boldness they showed when they first played tthe decert card which led the the NFL to run kicking and screaming for the players to reunionize in order to allow the socialism of the modern NFL to work.

 

I hope they show the same boldmess when Gene Upshaw dictated to the owners that the salary cap was going to be determined by the total receipts and the amount needed to start with a 6.

 

The owners are simply a cost addition adding 39.5% to the cost of the product when they can easily be replaced by the true sources of capital, the TV nets and their team management can be replaced by hiring football professionals as the Packers did. If 20% of the take went to the players and 20% lowered ticket prices the product and the fans would be much better. Too bad for the owners but the original investors have been richly rewarded and they made their own choice to re-open the deal and to deny you and me the NFL right now.

 

I simply do not understand what you think the owners bring to the gasme which cannot be replaced and make the economic product more efficient' The owners have okace their investment at risk and why you and other feel they have an entitlement to our money when they bring little to the game which cannot be replaced I simply do not see.

So you honestly think that there is no expenses to running an NFL team? It's not at all the case that the owners simply pocket 40% of the money to spend on coke and hookers.

[Mickey]

I "get" that the NFL is in legitimate legal jeopardy, and that it is in fact a monopoly. However, the legal theory that teams should be allowed to compete against each other for players' services because they are independent businesses is a major weakness and exposure which worsens the situation related to free agency. By no means would this eliminate the legal exposure. However, my statements are an indication of my opinion that treating sports leagues similar to Standard Oil is a fallacy. The public does not benefit by unlimited bidding between teams for players. The anticompetitive impact of the NFL should be measured against other leagues, not between teams. A team has no business without the other teams and therefore is unlike a gas station, where multiple gas stations can compete to sell a product to consumers. The public will likely pay higher prices in the absence of salary caps and a smaller portion of the public will have viable winning teams in the event of unlimited free agency. These factors should be considered if the government decides to impose a resolution. I would prefer to see a negotiated resolution that preserves the draft and limits free agency; but I would also prefer to stop hearing that teams are separate businesses illegally colluding. I would be more comfortable simply viewing it as "the NFL is a monopoly and as such it has too much power over its labor, therefore it has to be regulated". Whether it is allegedly 32 separate businesses or 1 does not change its monopoly nature, unless a viable alternative league exists; in which case it is no longer a monopoly.

 

I think the comparison is generally accurate. Standard Oil could have made the same argument, that they can produce a cheaper product which benefits the public (cost to the public being the sole factor you address in determining what benefits the public) if they were allowed to operate as a monopoly able to unilaterally decide what it will pay suppliers, shippers, railroads, refineries, truckers, employees, etc. etc. There would be no need for them to compete with others so there would be no need to spend money on advertising. The money saved could be used to improve the product and other services to customers. Thus, even if you restricted the analysis to costs, its not so clear that the difference between MaBell, Standard Oil, etc and the NFL is vast enough to justify a different set of laws. Cost alone would not be the only criteria in measuring the benefit to the public. In any event, we have a set of laws written to address these issues and there isn't a separate set of rules for football. Its up to the electorate as a whole, through their elected representatives in congress, to change that if indeed it should. Until it is, the league is engaged in activity which, in virtually every case in which the issue has been tested, is in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. To get the players to forfeit those freedoms granted to them by law, you have to give them something that is more valuable to them than those freedoms. The NFL managed to do that once they were forced to by the McNeil decision and others. They need to do it again if they want the players to give up a little bit more, or they need to prove to them that economic conditions require a restructured deal, they haven't done that.

[Mickey]

You are right of course, it would be more accurate to say that the league itself is not incorporated (though it probably has a corporate entity running various business activities) and in fact, is not identified as one in the legal documents on file in the current dispute with both the US Federal Courts and the NLRB. As for the member clubs, to be members they have to honor certain limits on franchise ownership which essentially limits them to being closely held corporations rather than public ones apart from the Packers who were a public corporation before the applicable rules limiting ownership were instituted.

 

I think that you would have to have an advanced law degree with a concentration on business law along with all the relevant legal documents of each team to try and determine the legal status of each team and

their varied financial interests. You would also have to have more time than god to figure it all out. There are probably ways to split up the money earning activities of teams from the entity that is considered to be the "member club" by the NFL.

 

You are also right that the distinction is probably not relevant in this context.

 

The players gave up something they were legally entitled to in order to get something they were not legally entitled to, ie, a percentage of the take. That made them virtual partners in this whole thing we call "professional football" regardless of exactly what that is. In saying that, I am not asserting that they have legal rights that make them "partners" in a technical sense but that hardly matters. The players get a percentage of the take and if they came by that percentage as a typical partner would or by some other means is not all that important. The leverage they had to force the NFL to agree to cutting them in hasn't really changed.

 

Really, doesn't this dispute have the flavor more of two partners going at it over how the partnership pie should be cut rather than a labor-management battle complete with strikes and scabs? I don't think Woody Guthrie would have written a song about this one.

 

(to the tune of Hobo's Lullabye)

 

Go to sleep you weary owners,

let the billions pass you by,

tonight, you've got a nice warm penthouse,

safe from nasty court injunctions.

 

DeMaurice Smith brings you trouble,

He causes trouble everywhere,

But when you die and go to heaven,

There'll be no Dee-Dee there....

 

So you honestly think that there is no expenses to running an NFL team? It's not at all the case that the owners simply pocket 40% of the money to spend on coke and hookers.

 

And if they opened the books, we would all know exactly what the numbers say and who is being reasonable and who isn't. But they won't. Enter law suit. Enter the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Enter discovery. Books opened. No secrets. Deal done. And we have our football back.

 

 

[Vinny4sum]

Go enjoy the "NewNFL" then and stop plaguing us with this goofy crap.

 

Since there is going to be a NewNFL, doesn't that prove the league is not a monopoly?

 

The monopoly argument has always amazed me, how does the NFL limit the growth of another league? Just because other leagues have failed does not prove a monopoly.

 

Finally, why can't the NFL as an employer tell an employee where they can work? My employer can move my position at anytime and if I want to stay employed I can move.

[Mickey]

Since there is going to be a NewNFL, doesn't that prove the league is not a monopoly?

 

The monopoly argument has always amazed me, how does the NFL limit the growth of another league? Just because other leagues have failed does not prove a monopoly.

 

Finally, why can't the NFL as an employer tell an employee where they can work? My employer can move my position at anytime and if I want to stay employed I can move.

 

There are different kinds of monopolies and being a monopoly per se isn't illegal. Certain anti-competitive practices are illegal and monopolies are more prone to them because market forces

do not operate to limit them. The league was already found to be an illegal monopoly in the USFL case but they were not able to demonstrate damages. Making it impossible for other professional

football leagues isn't the only way the NFL's practices could be harmful to consumers. Check out the ruling in the American Needle case which the NFL lost in, I think , 2010. The vote on the Supreme

Court was 9-0 against the league which was basically trying to exempt itself from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act sufficiently for it to be able to get any future suits dismissed at the git-go.

 

Rather than selling licenses to market each team's jerseys and what not separately, the league lumped them all together in NFL Properties and licensed one company, Reebok, to sell official NFL team logo hats. The court ruled that the league sometimes acts as individual businesses competing with one another and at other times, as a single entity. But in either guise, the league could act illegally under Sherman and thus, courts would have to take each case as it came and under those circumstances decide whether the league was acting illegally or in a way that was benign under all the circumstances. The American Needle case was remanded to the 7th Circuit for trial which hasn't happened yet.

 

 

As a result, the league has to deal with occasional suits based on Sherman violations rather than being able to pull out a get out of jail free card on every single case no matter what the situation.

 

You can read the American Needle ruling here:

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf