Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 The players are running around trying to influence congress with "meetings" (not bags of campaign cash). The League, however is SUPPORTING a company that has sued them (unsuccessfully) in bringing their case against the NFL before the Supreme Court. link They want to settle the "single-entity" question permanently and are confident this case will be the best vehicle to do so. It's a ballsy move but if successful (they are clearly confident they will win), it will permanently change the relationship with the players and the very concept of collective bargaining. The union will never be able to challenge the League as a "monopoly" again since their threat of "decertification" would be rendered pointless. This will be huge.
Billistic Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 The players are running around trying to influence congress with "meetings" (not bags of campaign cash). The League, however is SUPPORTING a company that has sued them (unsuccessfully) in bringing their case against the NFL before the Supreme Court. link They want to settle the "single-entity" question permanently and are confident this case will be the best vehicle to do so. It's a ballsy move but if successful (they are clearly confident they will win), it will permanently change the relationship with the players and the very concept of collective bargaining. The union will never be able to challenge the League as a "monopoly" again since their threat of "decertification" would be rendered pointless. This will be huge. The Federal Circuit Court (7th district) ruled that the NFL was a "single entity" in 8/08. The Supreme Court will rule on "single entity" status some time in spring 2010. Even if the SC rules that the League is a SE, it won't reverse the previous decision institutionalizing free agency. I'm not sure how it shifts the power in the owner-player battle. Didn't the NFLPA already admit the league was a SE when it negotiated the original CBA? I think a ruling favorable to the owners would impact deals with TV, merchandising and stuff like that, but not so much dealings with the players.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 The Federal Circuit Court (7th district) ruled that the NFL was a "single entity" in 8/08. The Supreme Court will rule on "single entity" status some time in spring 2010. Even if the SC rules that the League is a SE, it won't reverse the previous decision institutionalizing free agency. I'm not sure how it shifts the power in the owner-player battle. Didn't the NFLPA already admit the league was a SE when it negotiated the original CBA? I think a ruling favorable to the owners would impact deals with TV, merchandising and stuff like that, but not so much dealings with the players. Not so--it will impact all dealings with players. The plaintiff is challenging the SE status. Form the Lester Munson article: The legal doctrine at the center of the case is known as "single entity." If the NFL manages to persuade the Supreme Court that the league is a single entity competing with other providers of entertainment rather than a group of 32 separate businesses competing with each other, the landscape of the sports industry will be transformed, according to law professors and experts contacted by ESPN.com. If it is a single unit and not 32 separate, competing teams, any violation of American antitrust law would be impossible to establish. A violation of the Sherman Act begins with a "combination, contract or conspiracy" that restrains competition and hurts consumers. If the NFL is a single unit, it cannot be in combination, contract or conspiracy. It would be immune to the antitrust cases that have allowed player unions to establish and to protect free agency and other benefits. "There is nothing of more concern to me," says one veteran union official, asking for anonymity because of the pending case and the significance of the issues. "Our leverage is in the antitrust courts, and a bad decision in this case could tilt the playing field beyond recognition." Another union leader, recognizing the significance of a win for the NFL, says wistfully, "We can only hope that the justices somehow decide that their decision to take the case for review was improvident and then decide not to make any decision." If the NFL is successful, then players, maverick owners, networks, paraphernalia manufacturers, fans and others will find themselves conducting business with what would be one of the most powerful cartels ever. With their new powers and freedom from antitrust concerns, all four leagues would enter a new reality. Owners could attack free agency, using their new bargaining power to restrict player movement from team to team and impose a salary schedule, If the NFL succeeds in its single-entity gambit in the Supreme Court, the words "decertification" and "class action" will disappear from the vocabulary of sports. Unions will be left to the uncertainties of bargaining a contract with strikes as their only significant leverage. Instead of resolving bargaining impasses with court cases, the deadlocks will be resolved in strikes and lockouts -- the baseball way. "It is highly significant that the NFL players have never really succeeded in collective bargaining. Their successes have come in antitrust actions," Edelman says. "Even with their successes in antitrust, they still have no guaranteed contracts; and they have yet to obtain other basic benefits like a neutral arbitrator for player grievances." NBA and NFL unions have not yet retained attorneys to appear in the Supreme Court. Leading the battle for the NFL will be Gregg Levy, another litigation superstar who defeated the union and its attorney, Kenneth Starr, in the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Pro Football, Inc., a case involving a salary scale for taxi squad (now called practice squad) players. Leagues will enjoy unfettered monopoly powers. Salaries for players and coaches will drop. Free agency will wither away. Sponsors will pay more. Fans will pay more for tickets, television and Internet broadcasts and for paraphernalia. And owners' profits will soar.
GG Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Not so--it will impact all dealings with players. The plaintiff is challenging the SE status. Form the Lester Munson article: Munson should get better, or at least, less biased sources. If the SCOTUS rules for the NFL (highly likely) than all it will do is continue operating as it has been for the last 20+ years. The ruling for the NFL will not change anything, because the league has been operating under a single entity premise all along.
Billistic Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Not so--it will impact all dealings with players. The plaintiff is challenging the SE status. Form the Lester Munson article: I saw that, but this case will not revisit the issue of free agency. That's a different issue altogether. If the SC rules in favor of single entity, the players will "never" be able to bring an antitrust claim against the NFL. That hasn't happened ever so far, as far as I know, since baseball. The players can strike, and the owners can lock them out in 2011, but this case hasn't changed that as far as I can see.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 But hey, "labor peace." Another Mr. WEO gem. Labor peace has existed after each CBA extension--That shouold be obvious to a TV watcher like you. The entire dynamics will change if the Supreme Court rules for the League--it is the final arbiter on this issue. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that the owners knew this was the league's plan so they dumped the CBA, hoping for a ruling before 2011. If you can't understand the discussion, just stay out and avoid making a fool of yourself. I saw that, but this case will not revisit the issue of free agency. That's a different issue altogether. If the SC rules in favor of single entity, the players will "never" be able to bring an antitrust claim against the NFL. That hasn't happened ever so far, as far as I know, since baseball. The players can strike, and the owners can lock them out in 2011, but this case hasn't changed that as far as I can see. The NFL has been trying for decades to sell the idea that it is a single entity and so should be immune to antitrust attacks, with uniformly bad results. At least seven times in federal courts throughout the U.S., judges have been quick to recognize that NFL teams compete with each other for free-agent players, for coaches, for executives, for sponsors, for naming rights money and for fans. "If the court adopts the NFL's single-entity concept, it would change everything," says Marc Edelman, a law professor at Rutgers who wrote the leading law review article on the issue. The existence of CBA derives from these successful challenges by the union. Without the ability to force the League into a CBA, there will be no collective bargaining. The players can strike and that's about it. That's the whole point ofthe NFL's eagerness to get this ruled upon at the highest court. They are not preserving the status quo, fellas. Munson should get better, or at least, less biased sources. If the SCOTUS rules for the NFL (highly likely) than all it will do is continue operating as it has been for the last 20+ years. The ruling for the NFL will not change anything, because the league has been operating under a single entity premise all along. Every source quoted by Munson, including multiple union sources, league sources and antitrust and sports law experts all disagree with you. Who else does he need to consult here? Looks like all parties are represented and no one is quoted as saying this is no big deal, nothing new here. What are you talking about?
Billistic Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 The existence of CBA derives from these successful challenges by the union. Without the ability to force the League into a CBA, there will be no collective bargaining. The players can strike and that's about it. That's the whole point ofthe NFL's eagerness to get this ruled upon at the highest court. They are not preserving the status quo, fellas. Easy, brother. I'm just saying that to strike or not to strike has always been the players ultimate recourse. Personally, I think a lock out by the owners is much more likely in 2011. They've realized that they gave away to much of the revenues store in the previous CBA. That was way too un-American! Time to start thinking about signing up for a bowling league.
silvermike Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 So just to try to parse all this: If the NFL is a single entity, it can't be busted on any collusion grounds, since well, you can't collude with yourself. So anything owners want to do to keep salaries down is legit, including simply a league directive saying "the salary cap is now $50M" that doesn't even necessarily have to be published. It's just an edict from corporate HQ. If the NFL is a collection of 32 businesses, then they need to act as though they're competing with each other, so the players can sue for damages on all kinds of things about salaries and endorsements. Is that right? But what protects the NFL from a suit saying that it's a monopoly?
Billistic Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 But what protects the NFL from a suit saying that it's a monopoly? A coming Supreme Court ruling against the needle company. Who did the NFLPA agree with in the prior CBAs? Was there one CBA or 32 individual CBAs?
stuckincincy Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 The players are running around trying to influence congress with "meetings" (not bags of campaign cash). The League, however is SUPPORTING a company that has sued them (unsuccessfully) in bringing their case against the NFL before the Supreme Court. link They want to settle the "single-entity" question permanently and are confident this case will be the best vehicle to do so. It's a ballsy move but if successful (they are clearly confident they will win), it will permanently change the relationship with the players and the very concept of collective bargaining. The union will never be able to challenge the League as a "monopoly" again since their threat of "decertification" would be rendered pointless. This will be huge. If the NFL is a "single entity", what will happen to current contracts between a government and a team? The deal worked out between the B'gals and Hamilton County is often held as one of the worst, if not the worst ever. Currently, the county now pays Mike Brown money to occupy the stadium. The County has to pay $400K to repair the electronic screen next month. Brown has a guaranteed gate - if it falls below a certain level, the taxpayers (property owners) must buy up the shortfall. The 1/2 cent increase in sales tax is no longer able to service the bond debt...the County has announced that property tax will be increased. I could go on and on. Does this contract become void if the NFL is a single entity? Will the NFL have to re-negotiate a new contract?
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 So just to try to parse all this: If the NFL is a single entity, it can't be busted on any collusion grounds, since well, you can't collude with yourself. So anything owners want to do to keep salaries down is legit, including simply a league directive saying "the salary cap is now $50M" that doesn't even necessarily have to be published. It's just an edict from corporate HQ. If the NFL is a collection of 32 businesses, then they need to act as though they're competing with each other, so the players can sue for damages on all kinds of things about salaries and endorsements. Is that right? But what protects the NFL from a suit saying that it's a monopoly? A Supreme Court ruling giving them single entity status will preclude any future antitrust challenge to the League. In fact, such a ruling would establish that they are a single entity competing with other pro sports leagues for fan loyalty and income--thus making each pro league also a single entity. Hence the huge ramifications for all of pro sports. A coming Supreme Court ruling against the needle company. Who did the NFLPA agree with in the prior CBAs? Was there one CBA or 32 individual CBAs? Of course there was one CBA--it has been in place since 93 and there has been no work stoppage since. Again, the two weapons to force the League to the CBA table have been challenging their antitrust status and decertification. The Court of Appeals ultimately rejected that suit on the ground that the labor exemption from antitrust liability protected the employers, even though the union was no longer party to a collective bargaining agreement that would have permitted the practices that the union was challenging. In response, the union formally disclaimed (decertified) any interest in representing NFL players in collective bargaining and reformed itself as a professional organization in 1989. Having done that, the following year union members, led by Freeman McNeil of the New York Jets, brought a new antitrust action against the NFL challenging its free agency rules as an unlawful restraint of trade. The players ultimately prevailed, after a jury trial on their claims, in that action. That verdict, the pendency of other antitrust cases and the threat of a class action filed by Reggie White, then with the Philadelphia Eagles, on behalf of all NFL players brought the parties back to the negotiating table. Without those two weapons, the League is not bound by a CBA--it can set salaries for players and coaches. All the players can do is strike--which is not feasible for them.
Billistic Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Did DirectTV negotiate 32 different contracts to "broadcast" Sunday Ticket? The fact the the NFL is actually a monopoly is totally irrelevant.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 If the NFL is a "single entity", what will happen to current contracts between a government and a team? The deal worked out between the B'gals and Hamilton County is often held as one of the worst, if not the worst ever. Currently, the county now pays Mike Brown money to occupy the stadium. The County has to pay $400K to repair the electronic screen next month. Brown has a guaranteed gate - if it falls below a certain level, the taxpayers (property owners) must buy up the shortfall. The 1/2 cent increase in sales tax is no longer able to service the bond debt...the County has announced that property tax will be increased. I could go on and on. Does this contract become void if the NFL is a single entity? Will the NFL have to re-negotiate a new contract? It's likely only pertain to employees, merhcandise, TV contracts and such. Doubt it would interfere with individual contracts between teams and local vendors.
silvermike Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Okay, so the NFL as the only company providing pro football entertainment isn't a monopoly because it's not the only company providing entertainment - is that correct? In the sense that Marvel Comics doesn't have an illegal monopoly on Spiderman-based entertainment? This is distinct from if, say, General Motors made every car on the road?
Billistic Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 The CBAs between the owners and the NFLPA have transferred many tens of billions of dollars from football fans to the players, whether via ticket cost increases or increases in prices of Dodge Ram Tough trucks due to the cost of the endless TV commercials that make games last for 75 hours (deliberate use of hyperbole, K-9, NOT a lie). Fans payed for Nate Clements' ludicrous contract with the 49ers, not the 49ers ownership. I'm cryin' for both the owners and players.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 Did DirectTV negotiate 32 different contracts to "broadcast" Sunday Ticket? The fact the the NFL is actually a monopoly is totally irrelevant. Hmm, it's the basis of the case headed to the Supreme court, it has huge and permanent ramifications for all NFL (and all major sports) players and it's the topic of this discussion.... But....OK, I guess.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 Okay, so the NFL as the only company providing pro football entertainment isn't a monopoly because it's not the only company providing entertainment - is that correct? In the sense that Marvel Comics doesn't have an illegal monopoly on Spiderman-based entertainment? This is distinct from if, say, General Motors made every car on the road? Yes, or at least that's the status that the League want the Supreme Court to etch in stone. You're right, Marvel has a legal monopoly on Spiderman-based entertainment. But they do compete with other superheroes and superhero-based entertainment. And if GM made every car on the road, it would be impossible for them to say that since they compete with bikes and mopeds, thay are not a monopoly--so you are correct there also.
Billistic Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Hmm, it's the basis of the case headed to the Supreme court, it has huge and permanent ramifications for all NFL (and all major sports) players and it's the topic of this discussion.... But....OK, I guess. Maybe I should learn the fine art of using emoticons so that I can make facetious posts without getting flack (I think to myself using the dreaded third person...)
GG Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 The existence of CBA derives from these successful challenges by the union. Without the ability to force the League into a CBA, there will be no collective bargaining. The players can strike and that's about it. That's the whole point ofthe NFL's eagerness to get this ruled upon at the highest court. They are not preserving the status quo, fellas. The existence of CBA owes its life to the elimination of Plan B free agency, not to the construct of any free agency that is set up by the league. The likely SCOTUS ruling will not change anything from the league's standpoint, because the NFL has been operating as a single entity all along, in large part due to Rozelle's actions to turn the league into a pre-eminent entity. The league will want a CBA, because it doesn't want its owners to splinter and create a big vs small market paradigm, which will ruin the league. The courts did not enforce the CBA on the league. The owners did it on their own, because it was a better option for them. The SCOTUS ruling won't change a thing.
Recommended Posts