...meanwhile, the NFL/owners head to supreme court

[Mr. WEO]

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.

The fans would pay ever increasing ticket prices and advertisers would pay higher and higher per minute prices even if the cap did not go up. Simple economics.

 

A tiny percentage of any team's total number of fans actually pays to see a game---and they do so gladly, you would have to assume, because it an entertainment event (ie, it's fun). The choose to pay the asking pricefor this nonessential good.

 

The rest of the fans get their football for free--always have. This is paid for by the networks, who charge corporations whatever they can get for advertising, so they, too can make a profit.

 

Everyone's happy, everyone gets exactly what they want.

[Billistic]

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.

 

Which owners might that be?

[Mr. WEO]

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.

A CBA existed before the elimination of Plan B. The "Rozelle Rule" was overturned because of a successful antitrust challenge by the players. Again, the League has been brought back to the table specifically by bringing suit on an antitrust basis. If the SCOTUS rules it a single entity, it's antitrust status cannot be challenged again. To this point one court may say it is a single entity, a higher court may disagree--hence the League's decades long "uniformly bad results" at claiming that shold be immune to antitrust actions.

 

The owners cannot make separate deals for themselves regarding salaries, merchandise or TV contracts--not sure what you're getting at there.

[Fingon]

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.

Besides making them immune from all anti-trust laws? It would give the league a huge amount of ammunition in the negotiations of a CBA. It would make any new CBA heavily in favor of the owners, because the owners would have far more power than they did during the previous negotiations.

 

For example, the league could say that they won't decide what players deserve what salaries, if the players give up 5% of the total revenue. There will be many more things that the league can do, that they couldn't do before.

[GG]

Besides making them immune from all anti-trust laws? It would give the league a huge amount of ammunition in the negotiations of a CBA. It would make any new CBA heavily in favor of the owners, because the owners would have far more power than they did during the previous negotiations.

 

The league could say that they won't come together to decide what players deserve what salaries, if the players give up 5% of the total revenue. There will be many more things that the league can do, that they couldn't do before.

 

In theory, but not in practice, because the only weapon the players have, the strike, is still preserved. The owners may have the protection of anti-trust, but they won't be able to use the monopoly power because they know that they don't have a compelling product with replacement players. So, the ruling will not change anything.

[Billistic]

The fans would pay ever increasing ticket prices and advertisers would pay higher and higher per minute prices even if the cap did not go up. Simple economics.

 

A tiny percentage of any team's total number of fans actually pays to see a game---and they do so gladly, you would have to assume, because it an entertainment event (ie, it's fun). The choose to pay the asking pricefor this nonessential good.

 

The rest of the fans get their football for free--always have. This is paid for by the networks, who charge corporations whatever they can get for advertising, so they, too can make a profit.

 

Everyone's happy, everyone gets exactly what they want.

 

Does that mean that you think that the increase in money for the steadily rising increase in the players' salary cap is coming out of the owners' pockets?

 

Nothing's "free".

 

Is DirectTV a public service charitable foundation? Do the networks charge companies to show commercials? Do the companies raise prices to consumers to defray the cost of advertising?

[VOR]

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.

Has it occurred to me that the owners knew they were going to allow the ANI case to be heard by the SC back in 2006, when they crafted that POS CBA? LMAO! Um, no. I doubt it occurred to anyone BUT you. And that would include the owners.

 

Do I even think they knew this was the plan when they opted-out of the CBA back in May of '08? No. There has been ZERO talk about this case until June of this year. But go ahead and believe what you want.

[Fingon]

In theory, but not in practice, because the only weapon the players have, the strike, is still preserved. The owners may have the protection of anti-trust, but they won't be able to use the monopoly power because they know that they don't have a compelling product with replacement players. So, the ruling will not change anything.

Do you really know nothing about how CBA's are made? It's a give and take process, and this ruling will give the owners much more power over the players. The players will want to stop the owners from using their new abilities, and will have to give up more to stop it.

[GG]

Do you really know nothing about how CBA's are made? It's a give and take process, and this ruling will give the owners much more power over the players. The players will want to stop the owners from using their new abilities, and will have to give up more to stop it.

 

Yes, I obviously know nothing about CBAs or negotiating. What are these new abilities that the league will have if it gets the ruling?

 

Perhaps you can answer this - if the NFL gets the SCOTUS ruling, how will the league use its "new" negotiating leverage against the players to extract terms that it couldn't get before? Conversely, if the league is deemed to be a trust, how will the players negotiating position change from what they've had since 1993?

[DazedandConfused]

Everyone's happy, everyone gets exactly what they want.

I think this exposes one of the flaws in your thinking. IF (and this is a huge IF) a SCOTUS ruling gave the NFL a total anti-trust exemption which gave it huge power in negotiating with the NFLPA, one of the things you can say for sure is that the NFLPA would not be happy.

 

If there was such a seismic shift in the context of the rules governing the game, this would naturally be followed by a seismic shift in the agreements which govern the relationship between the NFL and the NFLPA. In the face of this disruption the "labor peace" which has allowed the NFL and the NFLPA to make more $ than anyone dreamed imaginable under life before the current CBA would be the order of the day.

 

The networks supply amazing amounts of wealth to the NFL and NFLPA because this entity can basically guarantee that under the long term agreement reflected in the current CBA they can sell the networks product which they can use to sell soap in commercial ads.

 

My sense is that rather than the galactic change Munson and you seem to want to sell as a certainty, that one of the basic certainties which would come from such a large shift in the facts of operation is that certainly the players would get a smaller cut of the pie than they currently get (they will not be happy and threats to guarantee presentation of the products the networks want to sell will still be their trump card though the mechanism for doing this would be less clear. This in turn would lead to many owners not being happy at all because without the guarantee of having product to sell they will make less money.

 

I think you are flawed in coming to a conclusion that in fact the NFL is pushing for a ruling WITH the implication of a galactic shift because in essense they would be asking the courts to rule they will make less money.

 

Why would anyone in the NFL even imply they are asking for a galactic change in doctrine?

 

Not because they want this, but because this may create useful leverage for them in the current negotiations with the players over CBA extension.

 

I think at worse the NFL MAY love the idea but in the end they would hate the reality because they would make less money (the ultimate ruler and why Tagliaboo-boo joined with the NFLPA to get the owners to walk the plank and make the NFLPA not only partners but arguably majority partners as the their CBA cut starts with a 6.

 

Add to this that not only do I think you misread the NFLs intent with this move you misread how the court tends to make findings.

 

If they decide to go for a 5-4 ruling they may in fact make new law, but in order to get Kennedy they end uo making the new law apply fairly restrictively rather than the galatic change you describe in this case. The Supremes could easily immunize the NFL from lawsuits by businesses as led to this case, but they also could make such a ruling and in the same opinion declare that the ruling issue reagarding the NFL and NFLPA is not an ideological interpretation of SE that immunized the owners from anti-trust, but in fact past recent practice is affirmed and the current CBA agreement is quite lawful and it is both the case the NFL is immune to lawsuits by company's such as needle but not immune to lawsuits from the players,

 

These finding are ideologically contradictory, but here in the real world ideology simply does not rule. it is a factor but does not rule. In the end the Supremes can do whatever 5 votes say us the law and to get to 5 my guess is that the result will not be as earthshaking as you suggest.

 

In fact, if it attracts 6 or 7 judges, an outcome which rules for the NFL in the Needle portion of this suit but then affirms past practice in the parts which impact the NFL/NFLPA relationship is the likely outcome of any ruling, Ideology and theory is often secondary to reality.

[Fingon]

Yes, I obviously know nothing about CBAs or negotiating. What are these new abilities that the league will have if it gets the ruling?

 

Perhaps you can answer this - if the NFL gets the SCOTUS ruling, how will the league use its "new" negotiating leverage against the players to extract terms that it couldn't get before? Conversely, if the league is deemed to be a trust, how will the players negotiating position change from what they've had since 1993?

Well, the league could threaten to have all the GMs meet and decide what pay range each player should be in, and mandate that certain players remain unsigned. That would be legal if the NFL is ruled a single entity.

 

 

Yeah, the union would definitely not want to give up anything to prevent that from happening.

[Mr. WEO]

First of all, these are not conclusions about the case--they are those of a columnist who reports on sports law, academics who specialize in sports law, the NFL, the NFLPA, etc. I happen to find this a fascinating topic. Thought I'd throw it out there to break up the non-stop stream of TO taint-tonguing posts.

 

I think this exposes one of the flaws in your thinking. IF (and this is a huge IF) a SCOTUS ruling gave the NFL a total anti-trust exemption which gave it huge power in negotiating with the NFLPA, one of the things you can say for sure is that the NFLPA would not be happy.

 

Yeah, you could say that.

 

If there was such a seismic shift in the context of the rules governing the game, this would naturally be followed by a seismic shift in the agreements which govern the relationship between the NFL and the NFLPA.

 

Yes, now you are beginning to see it.....

 

 

 

My sense is that rather than the galactic change Munson and you seem to want to sell as a certainty, that one of the basic certainties which would come from such a large shift in the facts of operation is that certainly the players would get a smaller cut of the pie than they currently get .

 

Yes, yes, keep going.....

This in turn would lead to many owners not being happy at all because without the guarantee of having product to sell they will make less money.I think you are flawed in coming to a conclusion that in fact the NFL is pushing for a ruling WITH the implication of a galactic shift because in essense they would be asking the courts to rule they will make less money.

OH! You were so close!

 

 

 

Why would anyone in the NFL even imply they are asking for a galactic change in doctrine?

 

Add to this that not only do I think you misread the NFLs intent with this move you misread how the court tends to make findings.

 

Did you even read this article? Again, a defendent is supporting a plaintiff's appeal to the SCOTUS.

 

If they decide to go for a 5-4 ruling they may in fact make new law, but in order to get Kennedy they end uo making the new law apply fairly restrictively rather than the galatic change you describe in this case. The Supremes could easily immunize the NFL from lawsuits by businesses as led to this case, but they also could make such a ruling and in the same opinion declare that the ruling issue reagarding the NFL and NFLPA is not an ideological interpretation of SE that immunized the owners from anti-trust, but in fact past recent practice is affirmed and the current CBA agreement is quite lawful and it is both the case the NFL is immune to lawsuits by company's such as needle but not immune to lawsuits from the players,

Were you high when you wrote this paragraph?

 

Yes, I obviously know nothing about CBAs or negotiating. What are these new abilities that the league will have if it gets the ruling?

Perhaps you can answer this - if the NFL gets the SCOTUS ruling, how will the league use its "new" negotiating leverage against the players to extract terms that it couldn't get before? Conversely, if the league is deemed to be a trust, how will the players negotiating position change from what they've had since 1993?

 

Already answered this, and it's the whole point of the discussion as to why this is a potentially huge decision.

 

To repeat, if immune from antitrust suits brought by the union (which is what SE status would bring the league), the NFLPA would have lost the only weapons they have had over the years to compel the League to bargain with them--lawsuits and the threat of decertification. Now all they have is the strike, which is a useless tool (sorry, Mr. Dazed and Confused), as history had shown.

 

How eill the league use it's new leverage---as already stated, they won't see the point of CBA. They will set salaries--and it won't be a percent of total profits. No doubt they will hash it out with the union, but if the NFLPA doesn't like what they are offered, they have little recourse.

 

Your position that "nothing will change" is at odds with what the League itself (and everyone else involved) believes.

[GG]

Already answered this, and it's the whole point of the discussion as to why this is a potentially huge decision.

 

To repeat, if immune from antitrust suits brought by the union (which is what SE status would bring the league), the NFLPA would have lost the only weapons they have had over the years to compel the League to bargain with them--lawsuits and the threat of decertification. Now all they have is the strike, which is a useless tool (sorry, Mr. Dazed and Confused), as history had shown.

 

How eill the league use it's new leverage---as already stated, they won't see the point of CBA. They will set salaries--and it won't be a percent of total profits. No doubt they will hash it out with the union, but if the NFLPA doesn't like what they are offered, they have little recourse.

 

Your position that "nothing will change" is at odds with what the League itself (and everyone else involved) believes.

 

This is a far bigger deal for the league in its matters among owners than it is in NFL's relationship with the players. I'm guessing that there are a few owners who are rooting for the court to decide that the NFL is not a single entity. It's also more important to the NHL, given what's happening to Phoenix.

 

As for the relationship with the players, a strike is a far more effective weapon than the continuing threat of lawsuits. What the analysts are missing is what would come on the other side of a lawsuit brought by NFLPA against the league or the owners. The courts will not mandate a wage scale. The courts may impose monetary damages, but the most likely outcome would be the repeat of the Freeman McNeil decision and courts forcing the league & union to the table. So, you'll have another CBA.

 

I don't buy the analysis that the league will simply dictate a low wage structure on the players, and the players will have no recourse, because it's also not in the best interest of all the owners to do so. Even if the NFL is deemed a single entity, you will still have 32 boisterous owners with differing agendas and cost structures. If the players strike, many owners would feel the hit given the debt they're carrying on the stadiums. That's why a strike still remains the players' best weapon.

 

This fight is about a percentage of defined revenue sharing. Nothing more nothing less.

[Mr. WEO]

This is a far bigger deal for the league in its matters among owners than it is in NFL's relationship with the players. I'm guessing that there are a few owners who are rooting for the court to decide that the NFL is not a single entity. It's also more important to the NHL, given what's happening to Phoenix.

 

 

 

I don't buy the analysis that the league will simply dictate a low wage structure on the players, and the players will have no recourse, because it's also not in the best interest of all the owners to do so. Even if the NFL is deemed a single entity, you will still have 32 boisterous owners with differing agendas and cost structures. If the players strike, many owners would feel the hit given the debt they're carrying on the stadiums. That's why a strike still remains the players' best weapon.

 

This fight is about a percentage of defined revenue sharing. Nothing more nothing less.

I agree with that last part.

 

If the League is immune from antitrust challenge, they cannot be "forced back to the table". They will dictate what they believe is a fair percentage of revenue for the players.

 

The strikes in '82 and '87 were absolutely useless and embarrassing failures for the players. They demonstrated how poorly the players stood together. When faced with no paychecks and the prospect of watching replacement players on TV (The USL will be full of them) today's players will cave sooner than guys like Gastineau and Montana did in '87.

 

As for the relationship with the players, a strike is a far more effective weapon than the continuing threat of lawsuits. What the analysts are missing is what would come on the other side of a lawsuit brought by NFLPA against the league or the owners. The courts will not mandate a wage scale. The courts may impose monetary damages, but the most likely outcome would be the repeat of the Freeman McNeil decision and courts forcing the league & union to the table. So, you'll have another CBA.

 

There would no longer be a viable suit to be brought by the players (that's the whole point!). The only way the CBA is preserved is by such a suit.

 

Of course the court wouldn't mandate a wage scale. But their decision will aloow the league to do so unchallenged.

 

 

It is absolutely in the best interest of each owner to lower the salary limits for its players. Not sure who would not be for this. They league would likely keep some form of cap, but the NFLPA would not be involved in arriving at this number.

[VOR]

Players these days make exponentially more than they did back in '87, much less '82. Thanks to FA which they successfully fought for, and got. So they have the resources to withstand a strike. They are also MUCH better organized, as the last round of CBA talks, in which they took the owners to the cleaners, proved. A strike, while not ideal, is a very effective tool.

 

But if the NFL really "planned" this, they would have done it before Sotomayor got confirmed. She'll be siding with the players. And even outside of her, I can't see the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the NFL, and in the process all the major sports, and giving them virtually unlimited power.

[KRC]

Players these days make exponentially more than they did back in '87, much less '82. Thanks to FA which they successfully fought for, and got. So they have the resources to withstand a strike. They are also MUCH better organized, as the last round of CBA talks, in which they took the owners to the cleaners, proved. A strike, while not ideal, is a very effective tool.

 

But if the NFL really "planned" this, they would have done it before Sotomayor got confirmed. She'll be siding with the players. And even outside of her, I can't see the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the NFL, and in the process all the major sports, and giving them virtually unlimited power.

 

Didn't she rule in favor of the NFL in the Clarrett hearing?

[VOR]

Didn't she rule in favor of the NFL in the Clarrett hearing?

According to the article linked by Mr. WEO, she sided with MLB players during the work stoppage of 1995.

[GG]

There would no longer be a viable suit to be brought by the players (that's the whole point!). The only way the CBA is preserved is by such a suit.

 

So what?

 

The CBA is preserved via the suit, and the players will negotiate with the owners on revenue sharing and guaranteed contracts. As opposed to the CBA getting thrown out, and the players will still negotiate with the owners on revenue sharing and guaranteed contracts.

 

Just because there's a court mandated CBA, it doesn't change the business equation. The courts cannot force an agreement on the economic terms.

 

It is absolutely in the best interest of each owner to lower the salary limits for its players. Not sure who would not be for this. They league would likely keep some form of cap, but the NFLPA would not be involved in arriving at this number.

 

And if the NFLPA does not like the number, they'll go on strike and it will be a battle of attrition of who blinks first. The players without money, or the owners who have high debts to pay with no gate receipts. The TV contracts will continue paying, but I'm sure DirecTV and the networks will have something to say to the league when ratings fall. Plus, with UFL starting up and the quick start up of XFL, I'd say that the players could form a rival league rather quickly.

 

Hence, the ruling will not change anything wrt contract negotiations.

[Fingon]

Players these days make exponentially more than they did back in '87, much less '82. Thanks to FA which they successfully fought for, and got. So they have the resources to withstand a strike. They are also MUCH better organized, as the last round of CBA talks, in which they took the owners to the cleaners, proved. A strike, while not ideal, is a very effective tool.

 

But if the NFL really "planned" this, they would have done it before Sotomayor got confirmed. She'll be siding with the players. And even outside of her, I can't see the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the NFL, and in the process all the major sports, and giving them virtually unlimited power.

Sotomayor will make no difference on this case. She is replacing a very liberal judge. Also, it would be considered a major upset for the SCOTUS to rule against the NFL.

[VOR]

Sotomayor will make no difference on this case. She is replacing a very liberal judge. Also, it would be considered a major upset for the SCOTUS to rule against the NFL.

Is this is truly a liberal versus conservative issue? And how assured is it that the SCOTUS will rule for the NFL?