plenzmd1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 So I get the CBA called for a draft this year....but was that deal not negotiated by a union that is no longer in existence? And if the union is not in existence, does having the draft then help the players if the players then files suit on antitrust basis? I mean , to me, no more anti competitive move than telling someone where they must work no? Seems like the owners are setting themselves up here a little. Now I know I must be wrong, and it has to be that the draft was collectively bargained for in the previous CBA..but I just don't get it.. And just to clarify, I am not on the owners or players side here, but am fascinated on the mechanics of then whole thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 As a group, the owners can do want they want at this point. If they chose to have a draft they can't be compelled not to. Potential draftees are not in any union. They can chose to enter the draft or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 But do the draftees have to honor the NFL wishes with no CBA? Can a draftee decide he wants to play for a team other than the one that picked him and just say "there is no CBA, I can go where I want"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 But do the draftees have to honor the NFL wishes with no CBA? Can a draftee decide he wants to play for a team other than the one that picked him and just say "there is no CBA, I can go where I want"? No--no more than you or I could just walk into any employer and say "I'd like to work here-hire me". If the owners have agreed amongst themselves to preserve the draft system, that would be impossible. If litigation nullifies the draft later, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 So I get the CBA called for a draft this year....but was that deal not negotiated by a union that is no longer in existence? I always presumed that the NFLPA doesn't represent guys before they are members of an NFL team and thus the draft is outside any CBA. The draftees would join the union immediately after the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 They can't sign a contract until there is a new CBA, when a new CBA is signed it will uphold this years draft. Therefore the rights to those players will be assigned to the drafting team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Its kind of interesting that the players would be drafted by the NFL who will not let them work once drafted. The draft is in an internal policy created by the NFL which all the teams have agreed to abide by. The players don't have to participate or officially enter it to be drafted. When a player is drafted, it merely establishes a certain set of priority rights to that player's services by the team that drafted him as against the other NFL teams. That is significant only because the other teams have agreed to honor the rules establishing those "rights". Union or no union, they can have their little draft. Players can ignore it but that won't matter unless the teams do as well. The purpose of the draft was to bring some sanity to what had been nothing more than a player by player bidding war which the league could not financially survive. This is all pretty unchartered territory which makes it interesting to watch. As a lawyer, I find the litigation fascinating. The attorneys on both sides, I have to figure, have a plan whereby litigation is just a tool. Anyone whose plan is simply to win at trial is a gambling fool. The outcome of litigation is always uncertain. Always. There are aspects of it however which are certain. That is why I think that the litigation is just part of a strategy to get the best deal they can. Usually, when negotiation settlements, the last best, bottom line number doesn't come out until it has to which is when the trial starts or perhaps just after jury selection or in bench trials, somewhere during trial but before a decision is made. We aren't on the courtroom steps yet. The uncertain and potentially devastating outcome of a suit isn't close enough in time to make anyone nervous...yet. Litigation in NY and in most states permits the use of broadly applied and interpreted discovery rules. You can poke your nose into just about anything. Both sides can use those rules to peek behind the curtains and get a feel for where the best deal should be. At that point, it should just be a a mathematical exercise to find the common ground though I am sure both sides with strut and posture every step of the way hoping to get a deal that is just a little sweeter. If either side risks a court decision that could end in anything from player by player bidding wars to the league being able to get rid of free agency period, they are mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 They can't sign a contract until there is a new CBA, when a new CBA is signed it will uphold this years draft. Therefore the rights to those players will be assigned to the drafting team. You are partially right and partially wrong: Hypothetically the owners are free to sign anyone to contracts right now. When a new CBA is agreed upon any such contracts may be thrown into question. The owners are not taking any such actions right now becuase doing so may make theie anti-trust status null and void. This year's draft will probably be upheld under a new CBA but it also may not be. A flier in all of this is the potential implmentation of a rookie pay scale. The owners take a risk pressing forward with the draft in the absence of a CBA. Say for shorthand example that the newly negotiated rookie pay scale provides the #1 pick with $5mil in guaranteed money and an overall contract cap of $25 mil. If the owners draft before the CBA goes into effect the #1 pick may have rights to claim that he is not bound by the new pay scale as it was not in effect at the time he was drafted. With no CBA a player coming out of college could - hypothetically - sign with any team he wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 [ *]Hypothetically the owners are free to sign anyone to contracts right now. When a new CBA is agreed upon any such contracts may be thrown into question. The owners are not taking any such actions right now becuase doing so may make theie anti-trust status null and void. By agreeing to go forward with the draft, it can be assumed that they will not sign any player before a CBA is in place. Wouldn't make sense. [ *]This year's draft will probably be upheld under a new CBA but it also may not be. A flier in all of this is the potential implmentation of a rookie pay scale. The owners take a risk pressing forward with the draft in the absence of a CBA. Say for shorthand example that the newly negotiated rookie pay scale provides the #1 pick with $5mil in guaranteed money and an overall contract cap of $25 mil. If the owners draft before the CBA goes into effect the #1 pick may have rights to claim that he is not bound by the new pay scale as it was not in effect at the time he was drafted. The number one pick won't be signed until after there is an agreement in place. Regardless, if he was to claim he was not bound by the rookie pay scale, he has no recourse--he can't force a team to pay him what he thinks he's worth. He can only hold out--nothing changes. [*]With no CBA a player coming out of college could - hypothetically - sign with any team he wants to. Not if he enters the draft. If doesn't, he's like an undrafted FA. Still he won't get a contract before CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary_JG Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I'm a lawyer in Canada but from what I can understand to be going on... Player A signs a contract with Team A to play football through the 2013 season. In the absence of a CBA, Team A is bound to the terms of that contract unless Player A is in breach; however, with the presence of the CBA the contract is negotiated under US labour laws which allow Team A to not be bound to the terms of the contract should it be in a legal lockout position (and vice versa for Player A in a legal strike position). The fact that these contracts were negotiated under labour laws means that there is no free market for those players who currently have active contracts, although any player who is not currently under contract, in the absence of any other agreements, are eligible to sign with whichever team they choose. The issue is that there are other agreements that have taken effect and this is where it gets hazy. The owners agreed to operate under a specific set of rules in the event of an uncapped year with no CBA. I can only assume that this is valid due to the fact that it, again, was entered into under labour laws because otherwise it would be considered to be collusion. It is under this set of agreed upon rules by the owners where we find ourselves today. This agreement obviously contained provisions dealing with the draft and free agency, which is why we're having a draft and which is why no teams are signing free agents. The fact that the NFLPA is no longer a labour union doesn't mean that all of the agreements entered into through the collective bargaining process are instantly nullified and that it's free reign, there are some residual after effects. You do raise an interesting point about the draft, and one that I was wondering about too, in that how are they even holding a draft. The short answer is that they can hold it because all of this began under labour laws. The fact that no rookie can be signed until an agreement is in place (or they're forced to hold games) I would assume is also due to this agreement by the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 They can't sign a contract until there is a new CBA, when a new CBA is signed it will uphold this years draft. Therefore the rights to those players will be assigned to the drafting team. Depending on how the early April court date goes I could see the league being compelled to accept a shorter draft during bargaining. Maybe it's cut down to 5 rounds. I suppose the 6th and 7th round picks would then become UFAs? I'm a lawyer in Canada but from what I can understand to be going on... Can you help me with this one...player A is under contract to team B. Team B locks out player A, tells him he can't come to work. Player A hasn't done 'anything', hasn't said he doesn't want to play. Why is team B not compelled to pay player A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Unless they are injured, aren't they by contract only paid for games played/suited up for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Unless they are injured, aren't they by contract only paid for games played/suited up for? Yeah, I'm sure that how the contracts are written, but the owners are the ones potentially canceling games. Somehow that doesn't easily square up with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wei 44 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I am an antitrust economist (not a lawyer but I work with a lot of lawyers on mergers and antitrust litigation) - Let me know if anyone has any questions about the antritrust economics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I am an antitrust economist (not a lawyer but I work with a lot of lawyers on mergers and antitrust litigation) - Let me know if anyone has any questions about the antritrust economics! Well, since you offered... How DO antitrust economics relate to the current NFL labor dispute? Thanks in advance. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Dear Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Now thst the NFLPA has decertified, what's stopping the NFL owners from setting up a universal pay scale or some other artificial ceiling on player salaries. Then they could lift the lockout and tell the players if you want to play in the leaguetheses are our new rules. I'm sure some players would elect to retire, but the vast majority would report eventually, especially if the salaries were still fair. My hunch is that if the NFL had won the decision to keep the 4B war chest, something like this would have played out. I think decertifying was still a risky move by the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You do raise an interesting point about the draft, and one that I was wondering about too, in that how are they even holding a draft. The short answer is that they can hold it because all of this began under labour laws. The fact that no rookie can be signed until an agreement is in place (or they're forced to hold games) I would assume is also due to this agreement by the owners. My non-expert understanding is that this is correct. Courts will generally allow entities to continue after an expired CBA with labor policies that were agreed to under it. But if the NFL implements dramatically new policies - such as a rookie wage cap - a challenge is more likely to be upheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wei 44 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Well, since you offered... How DO antitrust economics relate to the current NFL labor dispute? Thanks in advance. GO BILLS!!! A hearing is set for April 6th in the antritrust suit filed by the players against the NFL. Players are seeking an injunction to prevent a lockout - A lot of this is posturing and obviously there are many other issues involved, but in an antitrust suit, the testimony of economic experts can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case. For example, an economist is often retained to estimate damages in a complex antitrust case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) So I get the CBA called for a draft this year....but was that deal not negotiated by a union that is no longer in existence? And if the union is not in existence, does having the draft then help the players if the players then files suit on antitrust basis? I mean , to me, no more anti competitive move than telling someone where they must work no? Seems like the owners are setting themselves up here a little. Now I know I must be wrong, and it has to be that the draft was collectively bargained for in the previous CBA..but I just don't get it.. And just to clarify, I am not on the owners or players side here, but am fascinated on the mechanics of then whole thing Don't get me started on lawyers, but if you find NFL antitrust litigation issues fascinating, try chewing on this 1994 court opinion from a case involving NFL antitrust issues and William Sullivan, a former owner of the Patriots: http://openjurist.org/34/f3d/1091/sullivan-ii-v-national-football-league Amidst all the legal mumbo jumbo, there are a couple things that might be of minor interest to Bills fans 1. Brief mention of testimony by Ralph Wilson in paragraph 28 on one minor issue in the case; and 2. A contractual option to buy the Patriots that former owner Sullivan gave to a third party while he owned the team (around paragraph 71) - wonder if Patriots fans knew about that purchase option while Sullivan still owned the team? Edited March 17, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This is all pretty unchartered territory which makes it interesting to watch. As a lawyer, I find the litigation fascinating. The attorneys on both sides, I have to figure, have a plan whereby litigation is just a tool. Anyone whose plan is simply to win at trial is a gambling fool. The outcome of litigation is always uncertain. Always. There are aspects of it however which are certain. That is why I think that the litigation is just part of a strategy to get the best deal they can. If either side risks a court decision that could end in anything from player by player bidding wars to the league being able to get rid of free agency period, they are mad. When an attorney makes an observation that a particular issue is in "uncharted territory" then you are talking in terms of a multi-year process with numerous decisions and appeals before anything is settled. Is it in the players interest to have an extended battle where they lose paychecks? Of course not. It certainly isn't in the owners interest, especially if they have onerous bond payments. The union has challenged the owners that if they want a fight they will do it on their turf, the legal arena. An arena where all the combatants get equally stuck in the quicksand of the process. That is in no ones interest. And every is aware of that. The best scenario for both sides is to have the judge (early April) issue an injunction against the owners' lockout and have the squabbling sides back at the table working out a deal. The framework for an agreement is in place. The owners substantially lowered their demands. Now both sides have to be a little more flexible and get this business completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts