What do the players hope to win in court?

[paulSM]

There isn't a single industry in america that is allowed to dictate to it's employees like the NFL is. Imagine all major corporations getting together and agreeing on a salary cap for it's employees. or saying that there would be a CEO salary scale. No industry is allowed to do this... it's called collusion. The only reason that the NFL doesn't have people being hired by the highest bigger, and a free market is because they have a CBA with the NFLPA. Without the NFLPA there is no CBA, and the NFL does not have the right to control hiring across the industry.

You're saying that the owner's should be able to do what they want, and that's how it works in normal jobs. No, it isn't. if it did then bill gates and steve jobs would get together and decide to pay no programmers more then 40,000 a year.

[panthers55]

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.

Mopnopolies do get more regulatory control because their employees can't go elsewhere if they don't like what is happening like in any otheer business in the world. Just like Utilities or Nuclear power plants have to adhere to regulatory control and have to be controlled by some body interested in the larger public interest. Football is an institution in this country which affects 3 or 4 times the money that is made by the league considering merchandising, hotels, restaurants, bars, transportation and the whole gamut. So we are talking a 35-40 billion dollar entity at a minimum. Something large enough not to let it to the owners control alone.

Owners knew this when they bought a franchise so it isn't a new infringement or unforeseen.

You are clearly not on the players side but the owners. If you were on the fans side you would actually side with neither but see the merits of both which is what it will take for a deal to get done.

[blackcatgrowl]

There isn't a single industry in america that is allowed to dictate to it's employees like the NFL is. Imagine all major corporations getting together and agreeing on a salary cap for it's employees. or saying that there would be a CEO salary scale. No industry is allowed to do this... it's called collusion. The only reason that the NFL doesn't have people being hired by the highest bigger, and a free market is because they have a CBA with the NFLPA. Without the NFLPA there is no CBA, and the NFL does not have the right to control hiring across the industry.

The NFL is NOT the only pro sports league out there. They aren't even the only pro-football league out there.

It happens to be the most successful and lucrative for their employees. Just because they have the best pay, and the best demand, doesn't mean they are a monopoly.

There is absolutely nothing stopping an NFL player from going to play for the UFL or CFL. Oh... except they wouldn't make the big bucks.

You're saying that the owner's should be able to do what they want, and that's how it works in normal jobs. No, it isn't. if it did then bill gates and steve jobs would get together and decide to pay no programmers more then 40,000 a year.

You do realize, if Microsoft wanted to, they could reduce the pay of their programmers. Right? There's no law against that.

And you do realize that Gates has a large interest in Apple right?

[paulSM]

The NFL is NOT the only pro sports league out there. They aren't even the only pro-football league out there.

It happens to be the most successful and lucrative for their employees. Just because they have the best pay, and the best demand, doesn't mean they are a monopoly.

There is absolutely nothing stopping an NFL player from going to play for the UFL or CFL. Oh... except they wouldn't make the big bucks.

You do realize, if Microsoft wanted to, they could reduce the pay of their programmers. Right? There's no law against that.

And you do realize that Gates has a large interest in Apple right?

Actually the supreme court ruled 9-0 that the NFL was a monopoly. so yeah, it is. Yes Microsoft could reduce the pay of their programmers. However, microsoft could not get together with all the other programming companies and decided to all reduce pay to a certain level. see the difference? The St. Louis Rams are more than allowed to not pay any rookie above a certain amount. however, all the NFL teams cannot get together and decide not to pay any rookie above a certain amount (without a NFLPA and CBA). see the difference?

[blackcatgrowl]

Actually the supreme court ruled 9-0 that the NFL was a monopoly. so yeah, it is. Yes Microsoft could reduce the pay of their programmers. However, microsoft could not get together with all the other programming companies and decided to all reduce pay to a certain level. see the difference? The St. Louis Rams are more than allowed to not pay any rookie above a certain amount. however, all the NFL teams cannot get together and decide not to pay any rookie above a certain amount (without a NFLPA and CBA). see the difference?

First off, you're wrong. The Supreme court denied "Anti-trust Excemption". It did NOT say the NFL was a monopoly. In fact it ruled in favor of the NFL in making a collective contractual agreement.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?confirm=true&id=09000d5d8184a051&template=with-video-with-comments

"Although NFL teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate, profit-maximizing entities, and their interests in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned," said retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for an unanimous court.

The high court reversed a lower court ruling throwing out an antitrust suit brought against the league by one of its former hat makers, who was upset that it lost its contract for making official NFL hats to Reebok International Ltd.

American Needle, Inc. sued, claiming the league violated antitrust law because all 32 teams worked together to freeze it out of the NFL-licensed hatmaking business and gave Reebok an exclusive 10-year license. The company lost and appealed to the Supreme Court, but the NFL did as well, hoping to receive broader protection from antitrust lawsuits.

"In today's decision, the Supreme Court recognized that 'special characteristics' of professional sports leagues, including the need for competitive balance, 'may well justify' business decisions that among independent competitors would otherwise be unlawful," the NFL said in a statement. "The court noted that the NFL teams' shared interest in making the league successful and cooperating to produce NFL football provide 'a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions.' The decision will simply result in American Needle's claim being sent back to the federal district court in Chicago, where the case will resume in its early stages.

Secondly, the NFL does not make decisions about the pay structure of players in the CFL or UFL. Only the NFL.

[paulSM]

Wow. nice job actually doing the research. PI for you.

that being said, a little misguided. the ruling was one of those, "win the battle lose the war deals." The supreme court ruled that some "specialized characteristics" were needed. however, they also ruled that the NFL was a monopoly because they controled the pro football industry. Yes I know about the CFL and AFL. so did they. That's what the NFL argued. But they upheld the NFL as a monopoly, and left them open to anti-trust lawsuits such as what the players would bring. you can read all about it on

NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127095946

PBS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/05/supreme-court-says-nfl-open-to-antitrust-lawsuit.html#

Also you can read the ruling itself

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf

if that's a little too long and crazy I'll summarize it for you

your point

Football teams that need to cooperate are not trapped by antitrust law. “[T]he special characteristics of this industry may provide a justification” for many kinds of agreements. --The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions.

however, teams are 32 seperate entities

Thirty-two teams operating independently through the vehicle of the NFLP are not like the components of a single firm that act to maximize the firm’sprofits. The teams remain separately controlled, potential competitors with economic interests that are distinct fromNFLP’s financial well-being.

the NFL is under anti-trust law because

The justification for cooperation is not relevant to whether that cooperation is concerted or independent action.6 A “contract, combination . . . or conspiracy,” §1, that is necessary or useful to a joint venture is still a “contract, combination . . . or conspiracy” if it “deprives the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking,”

Without a colective NFLPA to negotiate with the NFL falls under anti-trust law. They have lost this case before 1989, and they will lose it again.

[Snake]

There isn't a single industry in america that is allowed to dictate to it's employees like the NFL is. Imagine all major corporations getting together and agreeing on a salary cap for it's employees. or saying that there would be a CEO salary scale. No industry is allowed to do this... it's called collusion. The only reason that the NFL doesn't have people being hired by the highest bigger, and a free market is because they have a CBA with the NFLPA. Without the NFLPA there is no CBA, and the NFL does not have the right to control hiring across the industry.

You're saying that the owner's should be able to do what they want, and that's how it works in normal jobs. No, it isn't. if it did then bill gates and steve jobs would get together and decide to pay no programmers more then 40,000 a year.

Last time I check the NFL is a Franchise so YES they can dictate how and what just like any Franchise can. What people like you dont understand is that its there business and they can run it however they want. Under Franchise law they can and will be allowed to add stipulations to there businesses. The NFL owns the teams and the Team owners only own there Franchise.

If the Union was to break apart and sue. They would have to prove #1 that the NFL is a monopoly and that would not work because in legal terms set up as a franchise no matter how much you and the Union dont like that.

#2 the would have to prove that the NFL has violated a right they have and no judge is going to tell a company that they have to pay for the players healthcare and there family's. Just not going to happen.

You allow the players to win this then whats next?

McDonald's gets sued by there workers. Then comes pizza hut and so on and so forth. No judge will open up that can of worms.