Got_Wood Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Article I guess the NFL believes that they are a single entity and are exempt from antitrust laws. Oh really NFL? Is that a fact? The 32 teams don't compete with each other at all??? Then why is it that when teams don't perform up to a particular NFL standard, they get shipped out of town? (No new stadium, no luxury boxes, means no dice.) You mean these teams aren't competing with each other for fans, players, coaches, and merchandise? That's news to me. Basically the NFL is getting away merchandising their brand through one entity: Reebok. This way they can charge fans whatever they want, and get away with it with the exclusion of competition. Drew Brees doesn't seem to think the NFL has a case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsRUs Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Article I guess the NFL believes that they are a single entity and are exempt from antitrust laws. Oh really NFL? Is that a fact? The 32 teams don't compete with each other at all??? Then why is it that when teams don't perform up to a particular NFL standard, they get shipped out of town? (No new stadium, no luxury boxes, means no dice.) You mean these teams aren't competing with each other for fans, players, coaches, and merchandise? That's news to me. Basically the NFL is getting away merchandising their brand through one entity: Reebok. This way they can charge fans whatever they want, and get away with it with the exclusion of competition. Drew Brees doesn't seem to think the NFL has a case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1 Thanks wood. That was a pretty well thought out and articulate article by Brees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I guess the NFL believes that they are a single entity and are exempt from antitrust laws. Oh really NFL? Is that a fact? The 32 teams don't compete with each other at all??? Then why is it that when teams don't perform up to a particular NFL standard, they get shipped out of town? (No new stadium, no luxury boxes, means no dice.) You mean these teams aren't competing with each other for fans, players, coaches, and merchandise? That's news to me. Sure they are competing; competing for the dollars that come with fans' eyeballs. But they are primarily competing against other sources of entertainment like basketball, movies, cable TV or going for a walk in the park. Just because they break the league into teams that play each other on the field doesn't necessarily mean they are competing within the group in a business sense. There are merits for both sides of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It's a very complex issue and while I appreciate the benevolent sentiment in the article. Don't fool yourself. The players aren't upset that the prices are so high, they are upset that they're not getting more of that money. The players aren't looking out for the fans in this regard either. I'm certainly not for the NFL or the way they seek to use the law, but there are ramifications either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I'm sure Brees had some help formulating this, and as Jeremy says, the players want a bigger piece of the pie, but this is a pretty good argument. I think the NFL might be aiming too high here instead of simply trying to strengthen their ruling against American Needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Just because they break the league into teams that play each other on the field doesn't necessarily mean they are competing within the group in a business sense. There are merits for both sides of the argument. With the current revenue sharing arrangement, and the fact that TV money (the largest chunk of cash involved) is divided evenly among the teams, and all owners have a say when teams get sold etc. etc. it's very hard for me to see anything other than one business entity, the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Sure they are competing; competing for the dollars that come with fans' eyeballs. But they are primarily competing against other sources of entertainment like basketball, movies, cable TV or going for a walk in the park. Just because they break the league into teams that play each other on the field doesn't necessarily mean they are competing within the group in a business sense. There are merits for both sides of the argument. This is a bogus argument. If it's the NFL vs. the NBA, then every NFL owner should be striving toward league parity instead of trying to distance themselves competitively, etc. Assuming, of course, that close games a media-competitive league makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 If the NFL fails, the draft will become illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It's a very complex issue and while I appreciate the benevolent sentiment in the article. Don't fool yourself. The players aren't upset that the prices are so high, they are upset that they're not getting more of that money. The players aren't looking out for the fans in this regard either. I'm certainly not for the NFL or the way they seek to use the law, but there are ramifications either way. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 With the current revenue sharing arrangement, and the fact that TV money (the largest chunk of cash involved) is divided evenly among the teams, and all owners have a say when teams get sold etc. etc. it's very hard for me to see anything other than one business entity, the NFL. That's my thinking. If this argument hasn't worked against baseball where all revenue is generated individually by team, I don't see how it would against football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonInBuffalo Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4822872 According to that article, the judges appeared to be skeptical of the NFL's argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Article I guess the NFL believes that they are a single entity and are exempt from antitrust laws. Oh really NFL? Is that a fact? The 32 teams don't compete with each other at all??? Then why is it that when teams don't perform up to a particular NFL standard, they get shipped out of town? (No new stadium, no luxury boxes, means no dice.) You mean these teams aren't competing with each other for fans, players, coaches, and merchandise? That's news to me. Basically the NFL is getting away merchandising their brand through one entity: Reebok. This way they can charge fans whatever they want, and get away with it with the exclusion of competition. Drew Brees doesn't seem to think the NFL has a case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1 They have a case because they are exempt by act of Congress. NFLPA is grasping at straws because their own greediness is getting ready to come home to roost and they are scared to death about losing $300-600 million in total player salaries during an uncapped year when the vast majority of teams will be cutting payrolls by $20 or $30 million dollars... Good luck players, you are gonna need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdBlueNorth Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Although there is certainly some self-interest on the players side in regards to free agency, I do not believe that the NFL does act anything like a single business entity although they do have some business interests and revenues that they share. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. Neither side is hurting and it is the fans that get jobbed in the end by hold-outs, black outs, union strikes, higher prices, or simply being held hostage year after year by threats of relocating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Although there is certainly some self-interest on the players side in regards to free agency, I do not believe that the NFL does act anything like a single business entity although they do have some business interests and revenues that they share. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. Neither side is hurting and it is the fans that get jobbed in the end by hold-outs, black outs, union strikes, higher prices, or simply being held hostage year after year by threats of relocating. This a topic that was discussed here months ago. If the NFL wins, as previously mentioned, there may not be another CBA (why would they need one?). That's why guys like Brees are being wheeled out to "write" Op-Ed pieces. The players will take a beating without a CBA, obviously. hold-outs, black outs, union strikes, higher prices, or simply being held hostage year after year by threats of relocating. Hate to break it to you, but all of those are either currently happening or are on the horizon because of the system as it exists now. There was an Ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that lays this out a bit. Fans wouldn't suffer with this monoploy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Here is the problem, the NFL wants to be treated like one company with 32 owners. In this way they control who makes and markets the merchandise! In this way the money is shared among all the teams and players. But there are some owners that no longer want to share all revenue, like Dallas. If this anti-trust exemption fails, then teams could market and have different makers of merchandise and keep all the profits for themselves. This is what Dallas and the Redskin owners want, since their merchandise out sells everyone else. They no longer want to share this money with the likes of the Bengals,Jags, Bills and other small market teams! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 This a topic that was discussed here months ago. If the NFL wins, as previously mentioned, there may not be another CBA (why would they need one?). That's why guys like Brees are being wheeled out to "write" Op-Ed pieces. The players will take a beating without a CBA, obviously. See the link in post #11 in this thread. The NFL isn't going to win this one because the SC doesn't want to "make history" with that ruling. And the owners won't suffer if they don't win, and only have themselves (well, 29 of them do, excluding Ralph, Mike Brown, and Stephen Ross, who bought the Dols after the CBA was approved) to blame for money lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I would not want the NFL to act like 32 seperate entities.. that is a recipe for a complete disaster. The NFL is the business, the teams are the branches of the business Once the league starts allowing teams to run their own business there will be about 5 teams that will ovelry dominate everything and the league will suffer and fall apart because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 The real bone of contention is this: whether the rule of reason should apply in this particular instance (the American Needle complaint) or whether the NFL gets to be a single entity for everything. That’s what this is all about, at least for the NFL. It all comes out starting around p. 57. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argumen...ipts/08-661.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4822872 According to that article, the judges appeared to be skeptical of the NFL's argument. What I find amazing is AP reaching the conclusion indicated by the headline based on the Supremes' questions the article quoted. The only skepticism that I read came from Sotomayor and Ginsburg. Shocking, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 See the link in post #11 in this thread. The NFL isn't going to win this one because the SC doesn't want to "make history" with that ruling. And the owners won't suffer if they don't win, and only have themselves (well, 29 of them do, excluding Ralph, Mike Brown, and Stephen Ross, who bought the Dols after the CBA was approved) to blame for money lost. Whether they don't want to make history is irrelevant. There's established lower court precedent, in addition to recent bankruptcy court cases in NHL that give wide latitudes to the leagues to operate as a single entity, with individual franchises fully beholden to the league's rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts