NFLPA claims Owners colluded to not give out fully guaranteed contracts

[thenorthremembers]

35 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

That doesn't matter for it to be collusioin.

 

Serious question.  How is collusion different than forming a union and making decisions together?

[cle23]

33 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

How is that different from the nfl getting together and putting in the salary cap? Im not saying this isn’t collusion or wrong to do I just seriously don’t know how it’s different.

 

I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. 

 

It's different because the salary cap is negotiated with the NFLPA.

[BuffaloBill]

2 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Looks like this could be heading to a court soon. Claims Owners illegally colluded to prevent players from getting fully guaranteed contracts...

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/nflpa-claims-nfl-owners-colluded-to-prevent-teams-from-offering-fully-guaranteed-contracts-151929807.html

 

 

 

There is a lawsuit that is a loser.  All any GM has to do is to point to injury history and cap impact.

2 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

Serious question.  How is collusion different than forming a union and making decisions together?

 

Because the law allows for unions

[thenorthremembers]

1 minute ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

There is a lawsuit that is a loser.  All any GM has to do is to point to injury history and cap impact.

 

Because the law allows for unions

But aren't the owners as a collective group considered a union?   

[Malazan]

DeMaurice Smith has been the absolute worst head of the NFLPA ever. He makes horrible deals then tries to litigate the things he should have been negotiating on.. and loses.. continually. So he spends a lot of NFLPA money on negotiating the CBA and loses then spends a bunch of money on these lawsuits and loses.. over and over and over..

 

I hope the next guy is more competent than the two current idiots running things for the players currently. 

[MJS]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

The NFL has a number of antitrust exemptions. It is important to understand that under regular US law, teams would have to operate independently of one another. No draft, no salary cap, no league-wide broadcasting deals, no franchise tag or free agency rules, etc. All would be in violation of antitrust laws. Teams would operate like any other competing companies.

 

I’m not saying that there’s a case in this instance or that there’s not. I have no idea if the NFLPA can prove that owners have colluded to not fully guarantee long term contracts.  But if they can, then the NFL would be in real trouble.  It would be as illegal as all of the large IT company CEOs getting together to set industry-wide wage scales for programmers. 

 

If I had to take a guess, I’d say this is probably a lot like airline ticket pricing. Airlines collude constantly, but good luck proving it.

I guess my question is whether or not the NFL as a whole is one business, or at least a multiple businesses underneath one umbrella business. That could mean the owners can get together and decide whatever they want and it wouldn't be collusion. If they are separate businesses, that's where collusion comes in.

[Buffalo Junction]

1 hour ago, BearNorth said:

Without some of the antitrust exemptions doubtful a small market like Buffalo would ever have a team. 

Small market isn’t the problem so much as owners depending on the team for income. Bills and packers would be fine. Raiders and bengals would need new ownership 

[MJS]

42 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

How is that different from the nfl getting together and putting in the salary cap? Im not saying this isn’t collusion or wrong to do I just seriously don’t know how it’s different.

 

I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. 

Contracts go both ways. If you are not performing as a player, the team should have a way to protect themselves.

[TheFunPolice]

so why isn't every owners' meeting where they discuss league business an example of collusion?

 

 

[Rock'em Sock'em]

This is a bit silly.  Players and teams can each negotiate for the guarantees that want.  Many contacts include enormous guarantees already.  Taking away all of the non-guaranteed portion of a contract does not necessarily make it better for either the player or team.

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

This is the NFLPA taking a course of action that they probably know is a long shot, to appease their members that are complaining (ie Lamar Jackson, et al).  The NFLPA had the chance to negotiate guaranteed contracts as part of their collective bargaining agreement and didn't do it.  They either didn't think it was important enough to cause a strike over or they were unwilling to make other concessions to the owners to obtain it.  This lawsuit will be a fools errand.

[Big Turk]

27 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

There is a lawsuit that is a loser.  All any GM has to do is to point to injury history and cap impact.

 

Because the law allows for unions

 

Unions were needed pretty much BECAUSE businesses often colluded back in the day with little to no penalties.

10 minutes ago, Rock'em Sock'em said:

This is a bit silly.  Players and teams can each negotiate for the guarantees that want.  Many contacts include enormous guarantees already.  Taking away all of the non-guaranteed portion of a contract does not necessarily make it better for either the player or team.

 

The argument isn't that this isn't possible. The argument is that all of the owners, which would almost assuredly have happened with the commissioner's knowledge, got together and decided to put an end to fully guaranteed contracts. That is illegal and in fact one huge reason why unions exist today. They were in large part, born to combat this type of thing.

 

It has nothing to do with guaranteed contracts happening or not happening, it has to do with WHY they aren't happening and if the owners are "in it together" to prevent it.

 

With the argument you make, collusion wouldn't exist because any business could make the same argument. However, free markets are expected to act as free markets, not as one giant conglomerate that limits compettion.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk

[MJS]

3 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Unions were needed pretty much BECAUSE businesses often colluded back in the day with little to no penalties.

 

The argument isn't that this isn't possible. The argument is that all of the owners, which would almost assuredly have happened with the commissioner's knowledge, for together and decided to put an end to fully guaranteed contracts. That is illegal.

Is it illegal?

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, MJS said:

Is it illegal?

 

Free markets getting together to ensure something happens that is considered anti-competitive behavior? Yes. It's called collusion.

 

It comes in many forms, there isn't a one form fits all definition.

 

 

[TheFunPolice]

IMO there doesn't need to be "collusion"

 

It's not something teams would want to do on their own. 

 

Browns only did it to beat out Atlanta. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by TheFunPolice

[MJS]

Just now, Big Turk said:

Free markets getting together to ensure something happens that is considered anti-competitive behavior? Yes. It's called collusion.

 

It comes in many forms, there isn't a one form fits all definition.

The NFL is not a free market. It is a giant organization with collectively bargained rules. The owners have the power to not give out guaranteed contracts. The owners get together regularly and discuss issues related to the NFL as a whole.

 

This is way different than Walmart and Target getting together to set a price ceiling for sneakers.

 

Just wait and see. Nothing will come from this lawsuit.

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, MJS said:

The NFL is not a free market. It is a giant organization with collectively bargained rules. The owners have the power to not give out guaranteed contracts. The owners get together regularly and discuss issues related to the NFL as a whole.

 

This is way different than Walmart and Target getting together to set a price ceiling for sneakers.

 

Just wait and see. Nothing will come from this lawsuit.

 

Of course it is...otherwise there wouldn't be free agency. Players would just be stuck with whatever team drafted them like it was backcin the day before the courts got involved and ruled in favor of the players.

 

Except it's not really. If nothing comes from it, it will because they don't have definitive proof, not because it isn't illegal.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk

[TheFunPolice]

so is the point of the NFLPA that teams would have been handing out fully guaranteed deals absent this "collusion?"

 

Because it seems like it would not benefit a team at ALL to do that, except in a case like Cleveland where they were going to do anything it took to land Watson

 

Did the owners collude to deny Nathan Peterman another starting job too? 

Edited November 22, 2022 by TheFunPolice

[BuffaloBill]

32 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

But aren't the owners as a collective group considered a union?   

 

 

No, as a matter of fact they are a monopoly that has a special legal exemption.  There is specific legislation also allowing for and protecting workers (not owners) rights to form a union and collectively bargain.

[Saint Doug]

Not having guaranteed contracts allows players to hold-out/tweet about their disrespect to get back to the negotiating table. Many players play 2-3 years into a 5 year contract, then start complaining. Guaranteed contract will guarantee they have no recourse to get a raise. It’ll also put big time constraints on the salary cap. No more restructuring.