What do the players hope to win in court?

[blackcatgrowl]

The old "this is their business and they can do what they want" would apply if there were any competition and there were a free market. But the NFl is the only business which buys and sells professional football athletes. So they are a monopoly and subject to laws and oversight just like ATT used to be before they broke up.

The NFL is a monopoly and subject to antitrust rules and other oversights. So as such apparently they can't just say this is the way it is, take it or leave it. Apparently.

Sports Athletes are not a commodity or product. They are employees.

The NFL sells sports entertainment, which is a luxury service. There are dozens of businesses which also sell sports entertainment. In fact, there have been many other professional Football leagues, and are currently more than just the NFL.

http://www.ufl-football.com/

http://www.cfl.ca/

The ONLY thing that sets them apart from other sports and football leagues is their level of success, and the demand for their product.

If being a successful business means you are, by default, a monopoly, then we have some serious problems with the application of the definition of what is a monopoly.

[riddel]

You've proven my point. David S. Doty, a judge who has a long history of ruling against the NFL, is ruling against them again. Predictable biased ruling. And that still doesn't "prove" the NFL is guilty of collusion.

In fact, the NFL has asked him to recuse himself from cases involving players on the grounds of bias. Why he continues to be involved in their cases, and is now involved in this CBA issue, throws up some big red flags imho.

I'd say someone has positioned him into the system against the NFL, or has otherwise bribed him for a political agenda.

Glad you actually read it rather than spouting off again....

Judge Doty will be the judge in the antitrust cases that the decertified union brings against the NFL once the NFL allows the CBA to expire. That being said, guess who wins.

[MHS831]

I am of the opinion that DeMaurice Smith's motives are not in the best interest of the players or the game, but political.

He really has no cards to play, but that doesn't seem to matter. It is as if he is bluffing when everyone at the table knows what he is holding. Forget peoples' jobs, this is personal!

[panthers55]

You've proven my point. David S. Doty, a judge who has a long history of ruling against the NFL, is ruling against them again. Predictable biased ruling. And that still doesn't "prove" the NFL is guilty of collusion.

In fact, the NFL has asked him to recuse himself from cases involving players on the grounds of bias. Why he continues to be involved in their cases, and is now involved in this CBA issue, throws up some big red flags imho.

I'd say someone has positioned him into the system against the NFL, or has otherwise bribed him for a political agenda.

That is the NFl's position but all the legal experts I have read have said Dody is fair and a very good jurist. There is no way he will recuse himself and actually is the right person for the case given he has been there all along.

The NFl is doing very well financially so it is hard to make a case that he has hurt the league or his rulings have been biased or hurtful.

[countryboi]

Ahh, the aforementioned weapons. So what are they? What exactly do the players gain when they decertify?

The weapons are an antitrust lawsuit and an injunction that would stop the lockout. When they are an active union, the players cannot file an antitrust lawsuit, and they cannot ask for an injunction. Labor unions are legally barred from such actions. When the players decertify, they become a group of individuals instead of members of a union. Their new status allows them as individuals to file an antitrust suit against the owners and to ask for an injunction that would stop the lockout. It's a difficult lawsuit, but it's a lawsuit the players can, and ultimately will, win. They will be following the litigation path that they followed under the leadership of the late Gene Upshaw, a path that led them to free agency, skyrocketing salaries, vastly increased health and disability benefits, and 18 years of labor peace.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110302

this is what espn had to say about NFLPA and their weapons.....sounds like they hold more than a few cards

[panthers55]

Sports Athletes are not a commodity or product. They are employees.

The NFL sells sports entertainment, which is a luxury service. There are dozens of businesses which also sell sports entertainment. In fact, there have been many other professional Football leagues, and are currently more than just the NFL.

http://www.ufl-football.com/

http://www.cfl.ca/

The ONLY thing that sets them apart from other sports and football leagues is their level of success, and the demand for their product.

If being a successful business means you are, by default, a monopoly, then we have some serious problems with the application of the definition of what is a monopoly.

Not really. They are called employees but when your rights belong to someone for a specific time and you can't quit one team's employment and go elsewhere since there is no where else to go, you are more of a commodity and the general employee/employer rules don't apply. Employees aren't traded against their will but players are routinely.

A monopoly is defined as a business which has no competition and is successful because they can set prices, do as they please and the normal supply and demand containments are not in place. They are successful because they are a monopoly and there is a demand for their services.

[blackcatgrowl]

That is the NFl's position but all the legal experts I have read have said Dody is fair and a very good jurist. There is no way he will recuse himself and actually is the right person for the case given he has been there all along.

The NFl is doing very well financially so it is hard to make a case that he has hurt the league or his rulings have been biased or hurtful.

When a judge has a history of consistently, almost to a point, ruling against a party in various legal disputes, it's a clear indicator of bias to me.

A Judge getting support from other judges is not a clear indicator of fairness. Rather, its a clear indicator of good politics.

I work with people who run the NC Bar Association all day. Trust me... judge and lawyer endorsement of each other is a good ole boys game.

[paulSM]

You've proven my point. David S. Doty, a judge who has a long history of ruling against the NFL, is ruling against them again. Predictable biased ruling. And that still doesn't "prove" the NFL is guilty of collusion.

In fact, the NFL has asked him to recuse himself from cases involving players on the grounds of bias. Why he continues to be involved in their cases, and is now involved in this CBA issue, throws up some big red flags imho.

I'd say someone has positioned him into the system against the NFL, or has otherwise bribed him for a political agenda.

The NFL predictably does not like Doty. However, the general concensus in legal circles (you can look it up. please do that before firing back an knee jerk report.) is that the TV deal the NFL signed is so CLEARLY against the good faith agreements they have with the NFLPA that they would definitely not win an appeal. That is simply a stall tactic. That being said, getting an injuction to freeze the money is another case entirely. The NFL knew this so they did it anyway. We'll see how that plays out.

here's a link to the best I've read about the labor dispute http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110302

[Udogg]

So basically, the NFL owners, the players are in a partnership. The owners negotiate the deals and the players play.

The owners negotiated a deal where they get paid, and the players don't in case of lockout by the TV networks. As long as the players are in a Union.

Lockout is a strategy by the owners. They will cease players medical, contribution of pension, generally all the "perks" will be lost. Also they can now hire replacements.

Decertification is a strategy by the players. As they are not represented by Union, that would make NFL subject to anti-trust laws. They would probably have to open up the "real books" and show they are losing money and why they want additional revenue. Thus going to the Court of Appeals and all that legal stuff.

[blackcatgrowl]

So basically, the NFL owners, the players are in a partnership. The owners negotiate the deals and the players play.

The owners negotiated a deal where they get paid, and the players don't in case of lockout by the TV networks. As long as the players are in a Union.

Lockout is a strategy by the owners. They will cease players medical, contribution of pension, generally all the "perks" will be lost. Also they can now hire replacements.

Decertification is a strategy by the players. As they are not represented by Union, that would make NFL subject to anti-trust laws. They would probably have to open up the "real books" and show they are losing money and why they want additional revenue. Thus going to the Court of Appeals and all that legal stuff.

This is probably the most concise post to the point of all this. It's all legal strategy.

[riddel]

When a judge has a history of consistently, almost to a point, ruling against a party in various legal disputes, it's a clear indicator of bias to me.

A Judge getting support from other judges is not a clear indicator of fairness. Rather, its a clear indicator of good politics.

I work with people who run the NC Bar Association all day. Trust me... judge and lawyer endorsement of each other is a good ole boys game.

Just because the NFL always loses, it doesn't mean they are facing a bias judge and very possibly the opposite. A bias judge would bend towards the company/owner before the union. What possible benefit would the judge get from ruling in the players favor if the cases are not true?

[Udogg]

The NFL predictably does not like Doty. However, the general concensus in legal circles (you can look it up. please do that before firing back an knee jerk report.) is that the TV deal the NFL signed is so CLEARLY against the good faith agreements they have with the NFLPA that they would definitely not win an appeal. That is simply a stall tactic. That being said, getting an injuction to freeze the money is another case entirely. The NFL knew this so they did it anyway. We'll see how that plays out.

here's a link to the best I've read about the labor dispute http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110302

+rep good find on that article. It explains a lot . Thanks.

[panthers55]

When a judge has a history of consistently, almost to a point, ruling against a party in various legal disputes, it's a clear indicator of bias to me.

A Judge getting support from other judges is not a clear indicator of fairness. Rather, its a clear indicator of good politics.

I work with people who run the NC Bar Association all day. Trust me... judge and lawyer endorsement of each other is a good ole boys game.

That usually means in labor relations that the party who is constantly losing is doing things that are unfair.

A judge who by all legal experts is considered fair and reasonable is obviously fair by any standard you want. There is a good old boy network in legal systems but it relates to other issues such as disbarment or other considerations. As for being fair, a legal expert who is saying it is fair would be the ultimate source.

What you are describing at the bar is different than what we are discussing here. There is a big difference between endorsing someone because you are members of a bar association versus a legsel scholar making an opinion about a judge's farness based on his court rulings aftere evaluating the merits of the case.

You seem to be the biased one here who is working hard to win an argument at all costs. If you are not a lawyer you must be a paralegal as you have all the telltale signs of wanting to win a battle regardless of the facts.

[blackcatgrowl]

That usually means in labor relations that the party who is constantly losing is doing things that are unfair.

A judge who by all legal experts is considered fair and reasonable is obviously fair by any standard you want. There is a good old boy network in legal systems but it relates to other issues such as disbarment or other considerations. As for being fair, a legal expert who is saying it is fair would be the ultimate source.

What you are describing at the bar is different than what we are discussing here. There is a big difference between endorsing someone because you are members of a bar association versus a legsel scholar making an opinion about a judge's farness based on his court rulings aftere evaluating the merits of the case.

You seem to be the biased one here who is working hard to win an argument at all costs. If you are not a lawyer you must be a paralegal as you have all the telltale signs of wanting to win a battle regardless of the facts.

How am I lacking facts? What have I said that is without factual basis?

Here's the bottom line... the NFL is being told how to conduct their business.

They are being told by their employees and their union, and now the courts, how to pay their players and negotiate contracts. You can argue all you want about legal definitions, and make any sort of claim of legal interpretation... all this amounts to is a high stakes game of control.

Being a fan of the product that the NFL produces, and seeing improvement in it in the past two decades, this is sickening to me to watch. Something I am passionate about is being threatened by power hungry greedy people. Both sides share levels of blame, but I can see the owner's points over the players. It IS their businesses after all that they are the owners of. At the level of pay they give their players, they should be calling the shots. Not the courts, and definitely not the players considering the incredible amount of money they make on average (990k a year, not including signing bonuses and endorsement deals)

In the end, I'm on the fan's side. If we don't have football this year, I'll hold both sides to blame.