Goodell, Snyder asked to testify: Congress

[BarleyNY]

 

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

No it’s not

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/12/03/congress-could-really-hurt-the-nfl-if-it-wants-to/

 

Specifically Congress has exempted the NFL from antitrust (aka anti-monopoly) laws where broadcasting revenues are concerned.  That is why the NFL can collectively bargain for those rather than each individual team having to do so independently.  The NFLPA and CBA also enable otherwise illegally monopolistic practices such as the draft, free agency restrictions, roster limits, salary cap, revenue sharing, minimum player age, schedule coordination, etc.  This all allows the NFL to act as one organization rather than 32 separate ones.  In fact, it even allows the NFL to determine the number of teams.  In a free market system new ones could be formed by anyone just like in any other industry. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by BarleyNY

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

 

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/12/03/congress-could-really-hurt-the-nfl-if-it-wants-to/

 

Specifically Congress has exempted the NFL from antitrust (aka anti-monopoly) laws where broadcasting revenues are concerned.  That is why the NFL can collectively bargain for those rather than each individual team having to do so independently.  The NFLPA and CBA also enable otherwise illegally monopolistic practices such as the draft, free agency restrictions, roster limits, salary cap, revenue sharing, minimum player age, schedule coordination, etc.  This all allows the NFL to act as one organization rather than 32 separate ones.  In fact, it even allows the NFL to determine the number of teams.  In a free market system new ones could be formed by anyone just like in any other industry. 

 

I'm familiar with the antitrust exemption.  You said the NFL is under "mandatory Congressional oversight".. That's not true.  Congress doesn't "oversee" the NFL in any way.

 

Also, the MLB is the only league with true "antitrust exemption" from the Sherman Act.  The Supreme Court denied the NFL the same, deciding that then NFL, unlike the MLB, was subject to the restrictions of the Sherman Act.

 

Instead, Rozelle pushed for some relief and ultimately Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act in '61.  It allowed for pooling of TV contracts by the whole league, instead of by team. 

 

So the "antitrust exemption" for the NFL is a matter of law for 60 years---not a function of "Congressional oversight"

 

And which members of Congress would form a majority to pass a bill that would change and ruin the NFL as we know it?  There is no such majority.  

 

This, like the Congressional MLB/steroid inquiry is  just for show.  

[BarleyNY]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I'm familiar with the antitrust exemption.  You said the NFL is under "mandatory Congressional oversight".. That's not true.  Congress doesn't "oversee" the NFL in any way.

 

Also, the MLB is the only league with true "antitrust exemption" from the Sherman Act.  The Supreme Court denied the NFL the same, deciding that then NFL, unlike the MLB, was subject to the restrictions of the Sherman Act.

 

Instead, Rozelle pushed for some relief and ultimately Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act in '61.  It allowed for pooling of TV contracts by the whole league, instead of by team. 

 

So the "antitrust exemption" for the NFL is a matter of law for 60 years---not a function of "Congressional oversight"

 

And which members of Congress would form a majority to pass a bill that would change and ruin the NFL as we know it?  There is no such majority.  

 

This, like the Congressional MLB/steroid inquiry is  just for show.  

The simple answer to your question about how this would work is to watch the current Congressional Oversight Committee proceedings.  That’s how this is supposed to work.  Whether or not the US Congress chooses to - or is capable of - doing its job is another matter.  This is still their job, whether or not they chose to do it. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by BarleyNY

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

The simple answer to your question about how this would work is to watch the current Congressional Oversight Committee proceedings.  That’s how this is supposed to work.  Whether or not the US Congress chooses to - or is capable of - doing its job is another matter.  This is still their job, whether or not they chose to do it. 

its a law.   They can’t change it without a new act signed into law.

 

Barring that, they have absolutely no oversight of this private corporation—you seem to be confused by the name of the committee. 

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

its a law.   They can’t change it without a new act signed into law.

 

Barring that, they have absolutely no oversight of this private corporation—you seem to be confused by the name of the committee. 

I think you’re confused about what’s actually happening.  Rescinding the antitrust exemption is definitely something congress can chose to do.

Edited June 3, 2022 by BarleyNY

[Nextmanup]

On 6/1/2022 at 11:38 PM, 78thealltimegreat said:

Roger under oath would be hillarious. But I fully just expect Dan to either plead the 5th or say I can’t recall to every other question.
Since in most of these congressional hearings they’re just trying to get you into a perjury trap anyway. 

I'm thinking of Ollie North during the Iran/Contra hearings.

 

North would be asked a question; he would be interrupted by his attorney Brendan Sullivan before he said a word.  Sullivan would whisper in North's ear for a good 15 to 20 seconds.

 

North would then say to the panel "I don't recall."

 

LMFAO

 

 

[nedboy7]

So now we are gonna pretend subpoenas actually matter.  Remember you don’t need laws cause bad guys won’t follow them. 

[Mr. WEO]

15 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

I think you’re confused about what’s actually happening.  Rescinding the antitrust exemption is definitely something congress can chose to do.

 

You say this with no apparent irony...

 

Congress can't "rescind" an Act they approved by vote and was signed by a president into a law.

 

 

The would have to propose a new bill eliminating the antitrust exemption for the NFL, vote on it, approve it in both houses and have the president would have to sign it.

 

What are you talking about?

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

For anyone still clinging to the bizarre belief that Congress would ever mess with the antitrust exemption, here is a good review of why it won't.  It's about a recent bill to eliminate MLB's exemption (which is far more broad than the one the NFL has, by the way).

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/12/bernie-sanders-baseball-antitrust-exemption-00038630

 

 "Since 1922, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that baseball was not subject to antitrust laws, the league’s exemption has been a whipping boy for politicians. But they’ve never been able to generate enough political support to get Congress to revoke its special status."

 

"Four years later, in ruling that the NFL was not exempt from antitrust laws, Justice Tom Clark elaborated on the rationale for the ’53 opinion: “The court did this because it was concluded that more harm would be done in overruling Federal Baseball than in upholding a ruling which, at best, was of dubious validity,” and noted that Congress hadn’t made any change to baseball’s exemption."

 

Congress and the SC have no interest changing this.

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Warcodered]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/sports/football/dan-snyder-harassment-news-congress.html

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/panel-finds-daniel-snyder-interfered-with-sexual-harassment-investigation/ar-AAYJNXE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a36a1d7a54a049fc8c34e7da109852bc

 

Quote

As the N.F.L. was investigating his team for widespread workplace misconduct, the Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder directed a “shadow investigation” to interfere with and undermine its findings, a Congressional committee found.

 

Can they bounce this guy out of the league already?

[JoPoy88]

2 hours ago, Warcodered said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/sports/football/dan-snyder-harassment-news-congress.html

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/panel-finds-daniel-snyder-interfered-with-sexual-harassment-investigation/ar-AAYJNXE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a36a1d7a54a049fc8c34e7da109852bc

 

 

Can they bounce this guy out of the league already?

only reason I can think of for that process not having begun already is other owners are scared of Snyder going nuclear and airing out league secrets that he’s privy to. He is a vindictive little worm after all.

[Doc Brown]

 

[US Egg]

Goodell tells Congressional comm. removing Snyder is beyond his pay grade.

 

Says Snyder goes only if owners vote him out if Goodell calls for such a vote.

 

This committees NFL ire surely kicked up a bit, after Goodell rebuffing them.

[Mr. WEO]

bread and circus

[BillsShredder83]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34131214/roger-goodell-says-no-authority-remove-daniel-snyder-owner-washington-commanders%3fplatform=amp

 

"The NFL is unwilling or unable to hold Mr. Snyder accountable," Maloney said. "That is why I am announcing now my intent to issue a subpoena for Mr. Snyder for a deposition next week. The committee will not be deterred in its investigation into the Washington Commanders."

 

Some interesting stuff going on here

[DrDawkinstein]

ALL NEW LEVELS OF PETTINESS

 

Page 177 of David Pauke’s deposition… related to pouring milk on the carpet under the seating in Mark Lerner’s suite so the suite would smell like sour milk on game day. “I did it because Dan [Snyder] told me to do it.”

 

 

[Jukester]

4 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

ALL NEW LEVELS OF PETTINESS

 

Page 177 of David Pauke’s deposition… related to pouring milk on the carpet under the seating in Mark Lerner’s suite so the suite would smell like sour milk on game day. “I did it because Dan [Snyder] told me to do it.”

 

 

Wow, this guy is like a child….except when he’s sexually on the prowl

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34131214/roger-goodell-says-no-authority-remove-daniel-snyder-owner-washington-commanders%3fplatform=amp

 

"The NFL is unwilling or unable to hold Mr. Snyder accountable," Maloney said. "That is why I am announcing now my intent to issue a subpoena for Mr. Snyder for a deposition next week. The committee will not be deterred in its investigation into the Washington Commanders."

 

Some interesting stuff going on here

 

Not really.  Even if he shows up, he'll answer what he wants and then at some point this is all over and nothing is done (by Congress anyway--because they can't do anything).  

 

The only point of this hearing is to make public all of this stuff in the hopes that it will shame 24 of the other 31 of a fairy shameless group of men (and a handful of women) into telling Snyder he has to go.

 

9 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

ALL NEW LEVELS OF PETTINESS

 

Page 177 of David Pauke’s deposition… related to pouring milk on the carpet under the seating in Mark Lerner’s suite so the suite would smell like sour milk on game day. “I did it because Dan [Snyder] told me to do it.”

 

 

 

This is convincing evidence of crying over spilled milk....