I don't know much about the law, but I keep hearing that "collusion" in sports is bad...by which I mean that owners can't get together and say something like "let's all agree not to give a contract to Barry Bonds" or "none of us will pay over 4M for a free agent this summer". Is it not different for all the big-time FA's to get together this summer to work out a common strategy? Or since they're the "employees"/"independent contractors", is there not a problem?
I've always heard you should remove collusion if you've owned your vehicle for over 5 years. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, though.
In capitalism, colluding to encourage competition is considered good, and colluding to decrease it is bad. Competition among the owners decreases if they collude, but competion between the owners and workers/consumers increases if the little guys form a union-like bloc which is as big and powerful as an owner. I think that's what you're alluding to.
My thought is if these free agents are willing to take less money to play together somewhere, then the NBA holds all of the cards in the next CBA negotiation. I don't see how this is a positive for the players' union. It's hard to argue that you are underpaid when your stars are plotting which owner they want to play for next year.
If there is a union, there is collective action on the part of labor. This moves the inquiry from anti-trust to employment law. Unions and employers can have a collective bargaining agreement that contracts away rights that might exist for employees in a non-collective bargaining environment. Without a union, it is a question of whether there is a monopoly on the part of the owners. Only Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption, so the NBA and the NFL are scared, at some level of the players decertifying. Remember Ewing and Jordan and the big stars trying to break the union of the NBA? That would have, essentially, changed the rules of the game. It would have been good for star players in that it would have removed caps but it might have screwed medium- and lower-level players by removing ceiling compensation. The recent US Supreme Court case (like in the last WEEK) of American Needle was one where the NFL could have been exempted from antitrust examination, but the court found unanimously that the owners acting in concert are NOT exempt from antitrust regulation. This solidifies the status quo, but is not (IMO) necessarily the best decision for the Court to reach. Of course, it's tough to argue that all nine justices are wrong. Ed O.
I see what your saying- if the owners agree to hold down salaries or other costs to the alleged detriment of player(s), then it is indeed collusion. However, if the players agree to take various means to force owners to incur more costs, then it is NOT collusion. Why? Cause businesses must be punished and employees may never be punished for the same thing. It's what makes the world go round.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5229374 Mark Kreidler asking the same question...behind the SportsTwo 8-ball on this story.
