NFL anti-trust case before the U.S. Supreme Court could alter the sports landscape.

by shake n bake on Jul 19, 2009 10:46 PM EDT in Analysis Comment 10 comments

A legal dispute between the NFL and a former retail partner has become a Supreme Court case with the potential to tip the balance of power between the four major American sports leagues and the Players Unions. The NFL is seeking a ruling declaring that the league is not 32 separate, competing, businesses subject to anti-trust laws against collusion as previous cases have held, but a single entity immune to anti-trust suits (because you can't collude with yourself).

A ruling in the NFL's favor would be a massive shift in labor negotiations giving all American Sports leagues a massive upperhand over their Player's Unions.

Anti-trust suits have been a key tool in the arsenal of Player Unions, being used successfully before the owners even recognized the NFL Players Association as legitimate. Former Colts TE John Mackey successfully defeated the NFL's reserve clause (Rozzelle rule) in 1976 which had made player movement nearly impossible. A final major anti-trust suit ushered in the modern NFL, with the Jets' Freeman McNeil court victory over the league, bringing on the era of Free Agency and the Salary Cap.

Nearly every victory of the NFL Player's Association has come not through collective bargaining or through strike, but through challenging the league's policies in court. The Supreme Court is capable of rolling back those victories for the players, leaving them to re-fight the battles with only the threat of a strike behind them.

ESPN columnist Lester Munson paints a dire picture of American Sports following an NFL victory in the Supreme Court

• LeBron James, who had been expecting a free-agency bonanza when his contract with the Cleveland Cavaliers expired after the 2009-2010 season, opens the 2010-11 season with … the Cavs, the only team with the right to sign him. Cleveland retains the NBA MVP by slotting his salary into the new league-wide scale.

• Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier, the hottest commodity for every opening in the NFL over the past six months, signs on to be the new head coach of the Dallas Cowboys … at a league-determined salary that will pay him far less than he'd have made if the Denver Broncos had chosen him over Josh McDaniels in 2009.

• The Ricketts family, new owner of the Chicago Cubs, scraps plans for its own cable channel because Major League Baseball has barred all such broadcasts, as well as webcasts, by individual teams.

• A young Detroit Red Wings fan who has saved his pennies for months shells out $300 to buy a replica sweater that would have cost him $80 in 2009.

• Lockouts and strikes loom large in all four major team sports as an era of relative peace on the sports labor front ends and owners begin to exercise their new power over player unions.

Whether the NFL's case will be successful and if a victory would tip the scales as far in the leagues' favor as believed is uncertain, but I'll leave off with a reminder on bashing greed in a sports labor dispute. These are many millionaires fighting a few billionaires over the average person's sports spending. Neither side is truely the little guy in the conflict.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Damn good post, shake

It was interesting and eye-opening. I can’t believe that these multi-billion sports leagues that succeed mainly on the revenue that we the fans, aka the little guys (and gals), provide them with; yet they want us to continue to take every penny we have and spend it on their product, but they still want to increase the prices of everything.

shake, I know you said that it’s kinda hard to look at the athletes as the “little guys”, but it’s really not that farfetched. I mean Lebron James has resurrected a franchise that had been a doormat for some many teams in the NBA for years, yet the owner is really the only profiting from all that cash that Lebron brings each and every night. I’m not a fan of Mr. James, but he and so many other players know the sports leagues in this country are businesses, and they want a larger piece of the pie. I truly do believe that downfall to this country will be greed.

"Peyton Manning flow, I just go no huddle."
- Lil' Wayne, Put Some Keys on That

by KMR24 on Jul 20, 2009 12:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

At this point, the outcome does not seem in doubt

The Roberts court almost invariable sides with corporate interests against labor interests, precedent be damned.

by slash196 on Jul 20, 2009 4:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Only one of the big guys is risking serious bodily harm every weekend

So I think I’ll got ahead and side with the millionaires on this one. Screw you, NFL.

by eltharion_doa on Jul 20, 2009 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you.

The National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League both asked the court to rule in favor of the NFL.

Sheesh, I think I’d better place my call to the Supremes too.

Thanks for posting, Shake.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Jul 20, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that I have to take issue here

What exactly do you think the league wants to do here? I think the purpose of being recognized this way is so that the league can grant exclusive contracts to manufacturers and maybe broadcasters and end the endless downpour of lawsuits seen against the league from beleaguered former manufacturers of merchandise.

Does anyone think that the league would have an interest in dislodging the free agency system, or to jack up prices on apparel and merchandise? I would have to say no. Baseball has operated this way for 87 years and merchandise prices are still low and player salaries have grown tremendously. And they are so good to the fans that the sport has seen a resurgance of sorts despite putting out a much lower quality sport than the NFL.

Actually, this may help parity and several positive league objectives by allowing the league to take a hard stance on issues like rookie salaries. This could indeed “change the landscape” as you say, but I would not be surprised if it were for the better. Though I can’t say for sure how I feel about this until I see the decision.

I also wish I had time and motivation to blog at Speed Blue Nation

by Bullard47 on Jul 21, 2009 2:49 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

I don't think I said it's the main reason they are going for

I’m sure the first idea was to stop the constant suits, but a victory would shift the playing field for collective bargaining and I think it’s hard to imagine they wouldn’t take advantage of that. I think the ESPN columnist is sensationalizing, but I think it’s pretty clear that if the NFL wins the owners will be the ones pushing the players around in negotiations.

That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"

by shake n bake on Jul 21, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps.

But the owners have plenty to lose in a strike. The game brings their revenue, and they want it to be played. I also think that most of these owners are such because they love the game. They want it to continue and prosper. I think the baseball analogy is sound.

by coltsfanawalt on Jul 22, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was pulling my info from sources that seemed really pro-players

and I was trying not to have that leak into the story (and when I knew It did included the line about greed.

I don’t think a ruling for the league would have to be a disaster, I don’t even know if it’s likely. I’m not expert on collective bargaining or the NFL-NFLPA negotiations. I guess I didn’t get the article neutral enough. It’s hard not to paint the league as the underdog hero when going over their successful anti-trust suits against the league.

That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"

by shake n bake on Jul 22, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt.

Oh, and I’m just catching up on this site for today. Good rebuttal of Babe Patsfan’s junk.

by coltsfanawalt on Jul 22, 2009 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The lawsuit

is all about money. The former retail partner is upset that the NFL is no longer working with them. The power in the NFL is the owners and they go by a majority decision. Majority rules so even if an owner voted to keep working with the retailer they still couldn’t. More of the owners wanted to get rid of that particular retailer than wanted to keep it.

We are who we think we are.

by Bearfan1973 on Jul 22, 2009 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs