Are any of you following the NFL lockout? Sounds like a Judge ordered the lockout had to stop because the owners had an unfair advantage in bargaining since they could afford to sit out games while the players couldn't. Basically was the same situation as what the NBA owners want to do to NBA players. Seems to me this would make an NBA lockout much more unlikely unless something changes on appeal.
You have to love a country where a single judge can dictate how a private business should be run. On a positive note, I hope that the owners collude and blackball Peyton Manning and Tom Brady from the NFL for suing them after making them very wealthy young men.
A private business with monopolistic powers. So, not exactly like most private businesses. If they'd like to be treated like any private business, how about they give up their anti-trust protections and lose the draft, salary caps, etc, and deal with players in a true free market? The amusing thing is that they're appealing to the 8th Circuit, which they hope for a more favorable ruling from because that court is seen as more conservative and "pro-business." Except they'll essentially be arguing against free market principles before that court. So good luck with that.
Untrue. Competing leagues have been allowed to operate, and there is a competing league in existence at present. Having a business that is so much better than any competing business does not make that business a monopoly. The only antitrust rights the NFL has is to negotiate as a league, yet other football leagues have that same right. I'm not surprised decertified their union and went the legal route, and I don't blame them for it, but it does illustrate what a sham the players' union actually is, because once the courts decide on this, the NFLPA will suddenly recertify. The NFL owners should just say screw it and negotiate TV contracts on a team-by-team basis without an antitrust exemption, since I do agree with you that approach would truly be "free market". The problem the NBA will have in this is that one franchise doesn't have an owner, meaning the "other revenue stream" argument won't work in that case.
Which is what allows the teams in the league to act like a monopoly. I don't mean that the NFL is a single monopoly on football. Even before the trust-busting days, a monopoly rarely meant one company that controlled an entire industry nation-wide. It meant an entity that got so large that it could engage in anti-competitive practices to the detriment of customers or workers. The NFL, by virtue of allowing all the teams within it to collude legally, certainly meets that definition. And that is what the judge determined, that they were engaging in anti-competitive practices to detriment of the customers and employees (players). This isn't new...Microsoft was also ruled against in an anti-trust case despite other software companies existing.
That's where I disagree with the judge, though. There is another professional football league available for the players if there is no NFL. http://www.ufl-football.com/ I don't buy the argument that there are no other revenue options available for the players, because there is an existing league that I'm sure would be happy to pay for NFL talent, and there would be a TV network willing to pay money to see former NFL players, in their prime, in another league. What we get instead are the players acting like victims without any options, and I have a hard time offering any sympathy for that argument. They seem to be saying that they need the NFL, and that's not a good position to be in as an employee.
I don't understand the logic of owners being unable to lock players out, but (presumably) players could strike at any time. While logic is not always part-and-parcel of the law, it doesn't strike me as just. Ed O.
What I don't understand is as follows. The players and owners negotiated a contract that included in it an opt-out clause. So, the owners decided to opt out, as the players ceded them the right to during negotiations, and as of right now, there is no existing contract between the players and the teams. How is it then that a judge can rule that the owners can't exercise a negotiated option that was collectively bargained? Why even have collective bargaining, if that's the case?
Well, it's interesting that you mention TV networks. A key finding that seriously damaged the NFL's case was that they essentially negotiated "lockout insurance" with the networks, getting assurances that they (the NFL) would get paid even in the case of a lockout. The players had a compelling case that the NFL didn't maximize total revenue from those TV contracts in return for getting those "pay even if no play" assurances. Since the CBA stipulated that the NFL would do their best to maximize TV revenues, since players got a piece of those revenues, this was a clear violation. In effect, the NFL negotiated in bad faith...they purposely didn't maximize revenues in 2009 and 2010 (when the players would be sharing the revenue) as they were supposed to do so that they'd get money in 2011 (when the players wouldn't be sharing due to the CBA expiring) during the planned lockout.
They can opt out. The judge didn't say they couldn't opt out. What the judge ruled is that they cannot lock the players out. The league could continue even with an expired CBA, either by extending the rules of the previous CBA (which is the expected outcome now, until a new CBA is hammered out) or else operate without a CBA...players as independent contractors!
They hired Manning and Brady to earn them more wealth, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Which is why it's silly to act like Manning and Brady are biting their generous uncle's hand. It was a business relationship and now they're at odds. Hardly an issue of not being grateful when they should be or something. Anyway, Manning and Brady were obviously the figureheads for this because there's no way they'll be blackballed. They're too good and established and, anyway, have little at risk having already made fortunes.
There is another league that Manning or Brady could join if they don't like what the NFL has to offer. Since they won't do that, they seem to be limiting their earning potential as 'business people', if you will. Also, I've changed careers in the past, so I'm not sure why the judge seems to think that the only "revenue stream" for a football player is professional football, but even if that is the case, the UFL option exists, and there is no certified NFLPA at this point to dissuade any player from joining a rival league. Also, I never stated that Manning and Brady weren't "grateful", although that word, in the business sense, is irrelevant in the judicial proceedings.
The judge ruled that solely on a "need" basis for the players, and the financial harm that a lock-out/shutdown would place upon many of them. What I am arguing is that there are other revenue streams available to players, just as there would be to the Average Joe who sees their employer's business lock their doors, for whatever reason. Really, an opinion by one judge is just that ... an opinion, and this is the same judge who didn't allow the NFL to suspend Pat and Kevin Williams for failing drug tests, so there could be a bias in her decision. I'm not saying that the owners are right, and I tend to side with the players in these instances. All I am illustrating is that there are multiple components to consider, and that a judge's decision doesn't necessarily mean that it was the correct decision.
It's not the only revenue stream. As I said before, anti-trust doesn't only apply to entities that hold every single piece of business in an industry. It applies to entities large enough within in an industry to engage in anti-competitive ventures and doing so. That's why Microsoft was successfully prosecuted under anti-trust laws despite other software and software companies existing. Closing down business for a year is quite akin to Standard Oil selling at a loss to undercut other businesses. A measure that doesn't directly increase profitability or the product in order to try to break other people in the industry so that they can be significantly more profitable in the future. In this case, directed at breaking a union rather than a competing enterprise. In addition, as I noted before, they were found to have negotiated in bad faith. Brady and Manning, as businessmen, could go to another league. But since the NFL is the most valuable one, in no small part due to the efforts of players like themselves, they are perfectly justified in fighting over their piece of the NFL pie.
Not solely on that basis. Also that they were in violation of anti-trust laws and that they had negotiated in bad faith. The legal analyst ESPN has writing for them said that it was highly unlikely that the NFL's appeal will succeed or that a higher court will even grant a stay, because the judge's ruling was long, considered many factors and was well-reasoned legally. So, it's not really the same as you or me holding an "opinion" based on what we think is "right." Her's was a reasoned legal opinion. It could be overturned, but it sounds like it was tight and solid enough for that to be unlikely.
Of course they are justified in trying to get full market value. Hell, they even disbanded their union to try and get more money, and are now suing their employers to allow them to keep working. Seeing the direction of the legal process, and the way that the decision will likely not be overturned on appeal, I think we'll be seeing a full season of NFL football under the conditions of the previous CBA. Roger Goodell messed up in the WSJ by talking about the fairness of the CBA that his owners opted out of in the first place. If it was such a great deal, as Goodell says, I don't see how the owners can expect any sympathy from the general public, or from the appellate process.
