The Court Made it's Ruling this Morning

[BillsfaninFl]

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this morning (in a 54 page document, of course) that the NFL owners' lockout is legal and can continue until a new CBA is agreed upon. It gives more leverage to the owners in the negotiations, but if they are already coming together it matters little.

[KD in CA]

I'm a little surprised the Court issued a ruling when signs appear to point toward resolution. Fear of losing the ruling provided motivation for both sides to work toward compromise.

[Chilly]

I'm a little surprised the Court issued a ruling when signs appear to point toward resolution. Fear of losing the ruling provided motivation for both sides to work toward compromise.

 

I think the motivation right now is more the July 14th date, when they need a deal done to prevent losing millions from pre-season games.

[UConn James]

As the negotiations stand with a deal that seems to be coming together, this ruling may have more meaning to the NBA lockout than it does for the NFL.

[KD in CA]

I think the motivation right now is more the July 14th date, when they need a deal done to prevent losing millions from pre-season games.

 

 

Agreed, and I think it will happen before then, but issuing a ruling now may embolden the winning side which could increase the risk of a breakdown in talks. It just seems to me the court could have waited a week.

[Casey D]

Agreed, and I think it will happen before then, but issuing a ruling now may embolden the winning side which could increase the risk of a breakdown in talks. It just seems to me the court could have waited a week.

I read the opinion and that seems unlikely. All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout. But the lawfulness of the lockout under the antitrust laws, and whether the NFL is protected from the antitrust laws by the non-statutory labor exemption remain open questions as the court declined to address these issues. So the NFL still has considerable litigation risk going forward. The Court ruling really keeps the pressure on both sides it seems to me.

[shoretalk]

Agreed, and I think it will happen before then, but issuing a ruling now may embolden the winning side which could increase the risk of a breakdown in talks. It just seems to me the court could have waited a week.

I think the court probably has been delaying and delaying but we had heard imminent settlement (according to a certain 'twitter' report that people on this board bought into) by the end of June. If anything this shows the weakness of the players position since they are no longer a "labor organization" not that I am a fan of the owners either.

 

Both sides just want to stick it to the fans while also penalizing former players whose bodies and minds still pay the price of their time on the field.

 

One reason to celebrate an owners' win though is a rookie salary cap, which is long overdue and which means no hold-outs this summer.

[Casey D]

I think the court probably has been delaying and delaying but we had heard imminent settlement (according to a certain 'twitter' report that people on this board bought into) by the end of June. If anything this shows the weakness of the players position since they are no longer a "labor organization" not that I am a fan of the owners either.

 

Both sides just want to stick it to the fans while also penalizing former players whose bodies and minds still pay the price of their time on the field.

 

One reason to celebrate an owners' win though is a rookie salary cap, which is long overdue and which means no hold-outs this summer.

To the contrary, the opinion holds that the owners may have to negotiate immediately with rookies because the labor exemption does not extend to non-employees. They may have to negotiate, enter contracts, and then lock out these "new" employees. There really is no win here for the owners, other than they can continue to lockout the players(but not draft picks--maybe--if the district court so decides). But they may be liable for damages for the lockout--so the league still is under pressure to resolve this by agreement.

[KD in CA]

I read the opinion and that seems unlikely. All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout. But the lawfulness of the lockout under the antitrust laws, and whether the NFL is protected from the antitrust laws by the non-statutory labor exemption remain open questions as the court declined to address these issues. So the NFL still has considerable litigation risk going forward. The Court ruling really keeps the pressure on both sides it seems to me.

 

Thanks for the explanation Casey.

[Casey D]

Thanks for the explanation Casey.

My pleasure.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Yes, thanks Casey. You ring trustworthy and informed.

 

BTW, the NFL and the players have filed a joint statement.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/08/owners-players-agree-ruling-wont-stop-negotiations/

[eball]

I read the opinion and that seems unlikely. All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout. But the lawfulness of the lockout under the antitrust laws, and whether the NFL is protected from the antitrust laws by the non-statutory labor exemption remain open questions as the court declined to address these issues. So the NFL still has considerable litigation risk going forward. The Court ruling really keeps the pressure on both sides it seems to me.

Well put, Casey. It sounds like the court essentially ruled on one limited jurisdictional question, without addressing the true merits of the underlying claim. If that's the case, it doesn't have any negative impact on the ongoing negotiations.

[Casey D]

Well put, Casey. It sounds like the court essentially ruled on one limited jurisdictional question, without addressing the true merits of the underlying claim. If that's the case, it doesn't have any negative impact on the ongoing negotiations.

Your characterization is exactly right. I think they knew that, and just wanted to clear their docket. The decision is probably wrong too, the dissent has the better analysis-- not that it matters legally.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Casey D

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I haven't read it yet, but here's the actual text of today's 8th Circuit opinion:

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3805522.0.pdf

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I haven't read it yet, but here's the actual text of today's 8th Circuit opinion:

 

http://www.ca8.uscou...8.3805522.0.pdf

Good thing you have no plans on sleeping any time soon… because I'm gonna guess reading that thing would be a cure for insomnia in most people.

 

Be a sport and report to us your findings when you're done reading it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I read the opinion and that seems unlikely. All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout. But the lawfulness of the lockout under the antitrust laws, and whether the NFL is protected from the antitrust laws by the non-statutory labor exemption remain open questions as the court declined to address these issues. So the NFL still has considerable litigation risk going forward. The Court ruling really keeps the pressure on both sides it seems to me.

It's a small point, but after reading the opinion, I'd say:

 

All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout of players now under contract.

 

Section B of the opinion, starting at page 33, makes this clear. It reads:

==================================================================================================

 

"Another portion of the injunction is not foreclosed by § 4(a). The district court

enjoined not only the League’s lockout of employees, i.e., players under contract, but

also the League’s refusal to deal with non-employees, i.e., free agents and prospective

players or “rookies.” As to these latter groups of players, § 4(a) does not apply. The

refusal of the League and NFL clubs to deal with free agents and rookies is not a

refusal “to remain in any relation of employment,” for there is no existing

employment relationship in which “to remain.”

 

An injunction with respect to the League’s actions toward free agents and

rookies, however, cannot be issued except in strict conformity with § 7 of the NLGA,

29 U.S.C. § 107, because this is “a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.”

Id. §§ 101, 107. The present injunction does not conform to § 7."

==================================================================================================

 

The district court DID have jurisdiction to issue an injunction requiring the league to deal with free agents and rookies, but was required by § 7 to give the League the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses before doing so. That didn't happen. As the 8th Circuit said:

 

"Whether to enter an injunction requiring the League to deal with free agents and rookies, only to have these players locked out as soon as they enter into any new contract of employment, was not considered."

 

It will be interesting to see if the players renew their request for a much more limited preliminary injunction with respect to only rookies and free agents. Although today's 8th Circuit opinion leaves the players free to do that, I'm not sure they have much incentive to try. Even if successful, the free agents and rookies would be locked out immediately upon signing a contract, so such an injunction wouldn't accomplish much.

 

I wonder if the owners will consider opening free agency and/or rookie contract negotiations while keeping the lockout in place with respect to players under contract? Seems to me like that might limit some of their potential future antitrust liability while keeping economic pressure on the players already under contract. OTOH, if the players have tentatively agreed to new rookie contract restrictions, and the owners expect to get a release of all potential antitrust liability as part of an impending global settlement, the League doesn't have much incentive to change course and start dealing only with free agents and/or rookies.

Edited July 9, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[San-O]

I read the opinion and that seems unlikely. All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout. But the lawfulness of the lockout under the antitrust laws, and whether the NFL is protected from the antitrust laws by the non-statutory labor exemption remain open questions as the court declined to address these issues. So the NFL still has considerable litigation risk going forward. The Court ruling really keeps the pressure on both sides it seems to me.

 

Ergo: the NFL is still protected until a decision is made that says otherwise and is upheld?

 

These guys are operating on a different "field", and until some situation comes up to dissolve their exempt status they are in the

drivers seat that I can see.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Good thing you have no plans on sleeping any time soon… because I'm gonna guess reading that thing would be a cure for insomnia in most people.

 

Be a sport and report to us your findings when you're done reading it.

 

FWIW, a few additional thoughts on where we are after today's 8th Circuit opinion with respect to the lockout:

 

Although it hasn't gotten as much publicity, the trial court consolidated the Brady antitrust case with an antitrust case that was originally filed separately by a group of retired players. Both the current and retired players requested a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. The trial court granted the current players' request for an injunction, with a detailed opinion that the 8th Circuit now says was erroneous, because the trial court lacked the authority to enjoin a lockout of players now under contract.

 

The trial court never reached the merits of the retired players' simultaneous request for the same type of injunction. The trial court merely denied it as "moot." That's legalese for the idea that if the trial court has already decided to grant the injunction for reasons advocated by the current players, there is nothing to be gained by trying to figure out if the retired players also had a separate and independent right to get the same relief.

 

As a result of today's 8th Circuit opinion, however, the retired players' request for an injunction is no longer moot. It's not clear to me how the retired players have standing to complain about a lockout of non-retired players (although they must have some sort of theory about how the lockout is allegedly harming the retired players). Because they are not currently under contract as players, it seems to me that the retired players fall into the same category as rookies and free agents for jurisdictional purposes. I can't see how anything in today's 8th Circuit opinion deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the retired players' pre-existing request for a preliminary injunction to end the lockout.

 

That doesn't mean that the retired players will get an injunction - - but it may mean that they are now entitled to renew their request for an injunction and to have the trial court reach the merits of that request.

 

The retired players have been complaining that they've been excluded from any real participation in the ongoing court-ordered mediation. If the retired players really do have some potentially valid legal theory for why they are entitled to have the lockout enjoined, they just might get a warmer welcome from the NFLPA's lawyers as the case proceeds. OTOH, if the NFLPA's lawyers don't think the retired players have any real chance of getting a preliminary injunction to end the lockout, the NFLPA's lawyers will probably continue to basically ignore them as much as they can.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

[7/9 EDIT - - Changed my mind about something above. Even if they otherwise have standing, the retired players won't be able to get an injunction to end the lockout with respect to players now under contract because the 8th Circuit already decided that the trial court has no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction here. I still think that the retired players, like free agents and rookies, are free to seek a preliminary injunction of more limited scope.]

Edited July 9, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Casey D]

Ergo: the NFL is still protected until a decision is made that says otherwise and is upheld?

 

These guys are operating on a different "field", and until some situation comes up to dissolve their exempt status they are in the

drivers seat that I can see.

I don't think protected is the right word. They could be racking up billions of dollars in damages in locking the players out if it is found to be an antitrust violation. In a certain sense, what the court held today is that if you want to slit your own throat, we won't stop you--but you might have other horrible consequences by doing that.

 

FWIW, a few additional thoughts on where we are after today's 8th Circuit opinion with respect to the lockout:

 

Although it hasn't gotten as much publicity, the trial court consolidated the Brady antitrust case with an antitrust case that was originally filed separately by a group of retired players. Both the current and retired players requested a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. The trial court granted the current players' request for an injunction, with a detailed opinion that the 8th Circuit now says was erroneous, because the trial court lacked the authority to enjoin a lockout of players now under contract.

 

The trial court never reached the merits of the retired players' simultaneous request for the same type of injunction. The trial court merely denied it as "moot." That's legalese for the idea that if the trial court has already decided to grant the injunction for reasons advocated by the current players, there is nothing to be gained by trying to figure out if the retired players also had a separate and independent right to get the same relief.

 

As a result of today's 8th Circuit opinion, however, the retired players' request for an injunction is no longer moot. It's not clear to me how the retired players have standing to complain about a lockout of non-retired players (although they must have some sort of theory about how the lockout is allegedly harming the retired players). Because they are not currently under contract as players, it seems to me that the retired players fall into the same category as rookies and free agents for jurisdictional purposes. I can't see how anything in today's 8th Circuit opinion deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the retired players' pre-existing request for a preliminary injunction to end the lockout.

 

That doesn't mean that the retired players will get an injunction - - but it may mean that they are now entitled to renew their request for an injunction and to have the trial court reach the merits of that request.

 

The retired players have been complaining that they've been excluded from any real participation in the ongoing court-ordered mediation. If the retired players really do have some potentially valid legal theory for why they are entitled to have the lockout enjoined, they just might get a warmer welcome from the NFLPA's lawyers as the case proceeds. OTOH, if the NFLPA's lawyers don't think the retired players have any real chance of getting a preliminary injunction to end the lockout, the NFLPA's lawyers will probably continue to basically ignore them as much as they can.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Retired players are not being locked out--they are not employees. And NGL clearly won't allow the DC to interfere with how the NFLPA is doing business. So there will be no injunction. The retired players just want more input into the negotiations and want the court to order they get more input, they don't want to end the lockout, as they are not impacted by the lockout and have no standing They are claiming it is an antitrust violation for NFL and NFLPA to make decisions on their pensions, etc. without a big enough seat at the table--not a challenge to the lockout. It is a very very very weak theory--but it is what it is. Make sense?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Casey D

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Non-retired players are not being locked out--they are not employees.

 

Agreed.

 

And NGL clearly won't allow the DC to interfere with how the NFLPA is doing business.

 

Even though the NFLPA has decertified and takes the legal position that it is no longer a union? The 8th Circuit left open the possibility that the DC could entertain a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction (of much more limited scope) by free agents and rookies, neither of whom are employees, either. Any such injunction would not end the lockout, but it could require the NFL to open contract negotiations with rookies and free agents. Not sure if you would consider that to be "intereference" with "how the NFLPA is doing business."

 

So there will be no injunction.

 

I agree that there will be no injunction that prevents the owners from locking out players already under contract. There could be a more limited injunction that results in the opening of free agency and the negotiation of rookie contracts, but even that is probably unlikely. As I pointed out above, the NFLPA's lawyers have pretty limited incentives to seek an injunction of such limited scope, even if they are legally free to try.

 

The retired players just want more input into the negotiations and want the court to order they get more input

 

I agree that media reports indicate that this is the main thing they want, but at least in the past it is not the only thing they have asked for.

 

they don't want to end the lockout, as they are not impacted by the lockout and have no standing

 

I have a very hard time seeing how they have standing, but haven't read any of their legal briefs, so I'm a little hesitant to jump to the conclusion that they can't persuade Judge Nelson that they have standing. If you put a gun to Fred Jackson's head and said convince Judge Nelson that the retired players have standing or I'll shoot Freddy, I would try to fashion an argument that the NFL's current practices will harm the retired players by reducing the $ used to fund retired player benefits - - but I think Spiller might wind up starting the first game.

 

As for the retired players not wanting to end the lockout - - if that's true, it probably represents a change in their original position on the matter. Footnote 2, at the bottom of page 10 of yesterday's 8th Circuit opinion, states:

 

"2Several retired professional football players brought a similar but separate

action on March 28, 2011, also seeking a preliminary injunction. The district court

consolidated the two actions, and denied the retired players’ motion for a preliminary

injunction as moot after issuing an injunction in the previously filed action."

 

Then again, I'm not sure exactly what type of preliminary injunction the retired players originally asked for. I suppose it could have been of severely limited scope - - and made moot by the more comprehensive injunction that Judge Nelson actually granted.

 

They are claiming it is an antitrust violation for NFL and NFLPA to make decisions on their pensions, etc. without a big enough seat at the table--not a challenge to the lockout. It is a very very very weak theory--but it is what it is. Make sense?

 

Because I haven't read any of their court filings, I don't know exactly what the retired players are claiming. I tend to distrust second hand media reports about such things. I suspect that you are probably right about how weak their legal theory is, but I'll reserve judgment on the matter for now. If they are no longer challenging the lockout, it's probably a change from their original position.

 

Your thoughts?

Edited July 9, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead