Doc Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 This is absolutely correct. That's why the gamble on the part of the owners to force this work stoppage was so silly. Why would they risk letting a federal judge determine how their league is run? It was a silly risk to take given how profitable the league has been. I know your issues are different and involve small market clubs being able to compete, but at the end of the day the owners have to be a ball of nerves. The owners are letting simple, old fashioned greed force them to play a very dangerous and foolish game. Still, no one, wants the fate of the league to be determined by a judge. That's not exactly true. Players wouldn't be UFA's until they have been in the league for 6 years. Also there is no salary cap minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) My thoughts: 1. The article may be well thought out, but it is a spin job, making it sound like the players should get more, when the owners opted out of the current CBA because they think the players are getting too much. This isn't a proposed solution, it's wishful thinking. 2. What's going to happen when the television networks start to see a decline in their viewer share percentage during NFL games? They will offer less for the TV rights and the golden egg will start to get smaller. Then the greed game between the two sides will get even uglier. 3. I laugh when I read comments about one side or another losing their support by the fans. Both sides know that most fans don't care about them. We are the financial peasants paying for the financial royalty's lifestyle. We care about the game (our addiction to football). While I'll be unhappy if I don't get to watch football this Fall, and/or unhappy if the league has to start all over again with lesser talent levels, I know that in a few years there will be new stars playing and the games will again be as entertaining as it is today. So if we have to suffer for awhile, at least we know it is temporary. I sometimes wonder if the suffering from being a Bills fan is temporary. 4. Lastly, to those who think that owners disclosing their profits will solve the problem, this couldn't be farther from the truth. Then the arguement would be players trying to tell owners that they make enough money. Good luck with that. And if you want to really get in touch with reality, consider that the percentage of profit becomes the salary cap. Not every team (see Buffalo Bills) will spend up to the cap. Not every player will automatically make more money (like those in their declining years or who can no longer make a team). Edited March 29, 2011 by BillsfaninFl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Now that there is no union, who will the owners collectively bargain with? If the owners ended the lockout on their own tomorrow, couldn't they dictate the terms of work going forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) This is absolutely correct. That's why the gamble on the part of the owners to force this work stoppage was so silly. Why would they risk letting a federal judge determine how their league is run? It was a silly risk to take given how profitable the league has been. I know your issues are different and involve small market clubs being able to compete, but at the end of the day the owners have to be a ball of nerves. The owners are letting simple, old fashioned greed force them to play a very dangerous and foolish game. Still, no one, wants the fate of the league to be determined by a judge. Fat peter also mentioned that as part of the next CBA, there's no way the owners agree to having a judge like that biased asshat Doty as the final word/decision maker. He said there'd be the arbitrator, but no judge. Now that there is no union, who will the owners collectively bargain with? If the owners ended the lockout on their own tomorrow, couldn't they dictate the terms of work going forward? Th owners could meet with guys liek Manning, Brees, etc and negotiate and agree to a new CBA that could be officially finalized when the union re-certified. Edited March 29, 2011 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 One woman's take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 One woman's take Great article. She highlights the exact problems in this labor dispute, and they start and end with de smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 One woman's take Great piece, BB. I have said and agree with her--the "show me the books" was a ruse to allow the union to walk away form a decent final offer and not give away their plan never to actually negotite, but sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 One woman's take What a delightfully researched and objective interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 One woman's take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Now that there is no union, who will the owners collectively bargain with? If the owners ended the lockout on their own tomorrow, couldn't they dictate the terms of work going forward? No, they could not because the courts will protect individual rights. Under the CBA with the NFLPA the league abridges the rights of individuals by holding a draft which forces this individual not to sell his services to the highest bidder (aka the good ol capitalist American way) but instead assigns the rights for this individual to one and only one team. Our courts have already ruled that even in a case like MLB which has much clearer and broader anti-trust exemption than the NFL that it is illegal to restrict an individual to bargain with only one employer. Our system does recognize though that it would be pretty difficult if not impossible to run a sports league which relied solely on the free market to allocate talent. Thus it allows a league to work with a certified bargaining agent of a majority of players to in fact collude against individual rights and allocate an individual without regard to where that individual wants to live to one team under the conditions that: 1. The bargaining agent reaches agreement with the league on a compensation plan which rewards all players compensation. 2. Individuals are granted free agency and a right to test the market at some point near the beginning of their career. When the union decertfied it denied the owners of the fig leaf of abridging individual rights to enter into contracts of their choosing and individual players such as Brady et al sued. Particularly given legal precedent such as the recent Judge Doty finding against the NFL and history such as Mavin Miller and the MLBPA beating the reserve clause when the MLB had even stronger anti-trust protection the NFL would likely lose. Even more clear, Carl Eller on behalf of NFL vets whose pensions, health care and other compensation are actually determined by CBAs within which they do not even have a vote and on behalf of college players who are not even voting members of the NFLPA yet, the owners are subjecting these individuals to various restriction where they now not only have no vote but the NFLPA fig leaf is not there without certification. The players have a good case and the collegians have a great one if the league now unilaterally decides to abridge the rights of individuals by forcing individuals to bargain with only one team, unilaterally sets the salary cap, and only allows FA until 6 years or so. To me not only is there really no question of illegal collusion and anti-free market exploitation if the NFLPA decertifies but even if the league if the NFLPA is a certified bargaining agent it strikes me as wrong under the current system that the NFL and NFLPA actually are allowed to conspire to stop 18-21 year old adults from signing contracts (which is unlike all other professional sports leagues and even worse than worse taxpayers pay a massive subsidy to the NFL to train potential players at taxpayer financed colleges. You would be simply wrong if you claimed without the NFLPA that the NFL could simply set any employment stance it wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 To me not only is there really no question of illegal collusion and anti-free market exploitation if the NFLPA decertifies but even if the league if the NFLPA is a certified bargaining agent it strikes me as wrong under the current system that the NFL and NFLPA actually are allowed to conspire to stop 18-21 year old adults from signing contracts (which is unlike all other professional sports leagues and even worse than worse taxpayers pay a massive subsidy to the NFL to train potential players at taxpayer financed colleges. You would be simply wrong if you claimed without the NFLPA that the NFL could simply set any employment stance it wanted. I was asking, not claiming. And you are assuming that the owners would act in collusion, when it is as likely they would favor an every man for himself plan. They would bargain with any player who was interested in joining their team. As for 18-21 year olds signing contracts--are you saying that a business should forced to allow these kids to be signed? The courts disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 No, they could not because the courts will protect individual rights. Under the CBA with the NFLPA the league abridges the rights of individuals by holding a draft which forces this individual not to sell his services to the highest bidder (aka the good ol capitalist American way) but instead assigns the rights for this individual to one and only one team. Our courts have already ruled that even in a case like MLB which has much clearer and broader anti-trust exemption than the NFL that it is illegal to restrict an individual to bargain with only one employer. Our system does recognize though that it would be pretty difficult if not impossible to run a sports league which relied solely on the free market to allocate talent. Thus it allows a league to work with a certified bargaining agent of a majority of players to in fact collude against individual rights and allocate an individual without regard to where that individual wants to live to one team under the conditions that: 1. The bargaining agent reaches agreement with the league on a compensation plan which rewards all players compensation. 2. Individuals are granted free agency and a right to test the market at some point near the beginning of their career. When the union decertfied it denied the owners of the fig leaf of abridging individual rights to enter into contracts of their choosing and individual players such as Brady et al sued. Particularly given legal precedent such as the recent Judge Doty finding against the NFL and history such as Mavin Miller and the MLBPA beating the reserve clause when the MLB had even stronger anti-trust protection the NFL would likely lose. Even more clear, Carl Eller on behalf of NFL vets whose pensions, health care and other compensation are actually determined by CBAs within which they do not even have a vote and on behalf of college players who are not even voting members of the NFLPA yet, the owners are subjecting these individuals to various restriction where they now not only have no vote but the NFLPA fig leaf is not there without certification. The players have a good case and the collegians have a great one if the league now unilaterally decides to abridge the rights of individuals by forcing individuals to bargain with only one team, unilaterally sets the salary cap, and only allows FA until 6 years or so. To me not only is there really no question of illegal collusion and anti-free market exploitation if the NFLPA decertifies but even if the league if the NFLPA is a certified bargaining agent it strikes me as wrong under the current system that the NFL and NFLPA actually are allowed to conspire to stop 18-21 year old adults from signing contracts (which is unlike all other professional sports leagues and even worse than worse taxpayers pay a massive subsidy to the NFL to train potential players at taxpayer financed colleges. You would be simply wrong if you claimed without the NFLPA that the NFL could simply set any employment stance it wanted. I don't think the outcome is as clear as you believe. I'm late to this thread and haven't read much of it, but I thought the question of how the NFL can proceed after union decertification was interesting, so I did a little digging. It's amazing what you can find with Google searches. On the off chance that anybody else cares, here's some info that might be of interest as this situation plays out: 1. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Vaughan-final-2.pdf Don't waste your time trying to read all of the above link, but there is a pretty pertinent analysis of how courts have dealt with the interaction of labor law and antitrust law in past sports disputes starting at the heading that reads "B. Labor Law" (at approximately pages 618 - 623) This analysis appears to have been fairly recently written by a student at Cornell Law School - - so it is not binding authority about anything but does contain some rational analysis about how courts have dealt with somewhat similar issues involving sports leagues in the recent past. 2. http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf The above link appears to contain the full text of the most recent CBA. I skimmed a very small section of it, and stumbled on some interesting provisions at Article LVII (pages 238-239). Among other theings, the NFLPA got the owners to agree, that at least in certain circumstances, the owners waived (in advance) any legal argument that future decertification of the union after expiration of the CBA was a sham. I have no clue if that's an enforceable waiver, or if the CBA ended in a way that triggers the provision, but both sides clearly knew in 2006 that they might be doing the antitrust law exemption/ union decertification dance in the future. BTW, if you are interested in other provisions of the CBA, it's a pdf format document that can be searched for terms of interest. Just type in the word or phrase you want to find in the search box at the very top of the document and hit "Enter" - - you will jump to the first hit on that word or phrase in the CBA. For example, if you type in "sham" and hit "enter", you will jump to page 238 or 239. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts