Antitrust Hearing Post 2pm CDT Break Updates *Hearing Complete*

[Nightshade]

I agree that its not necessarily true, but its probably true. But more than the relative division of questions, the most significant -- and striking -- statement made by the judge was on the question of irreparable harm. She is reported as having said that on irreparable harm, it "appears the players have strong case."

To me, as a lawyer that's practiced before a number of federal district judges, and clerked for one before that, this is a HUGE tell. If a judge isn't convinced that you are right on the merits, the judge isn't going to be of the mind that denying a preliminary injunction will "harm" you at all, much less "irreparably." The fact that she believes the players have made a "strong" showing on irreparable harm means, to my mind, that she believes both that the substantive claims have merit and that the preliminary injunction is necessary. As someone who has litigated preliminary injunctions as a plaintiff in federal court, if I heard a federal judge say what Judge Nelson said, I'd know it was time for me to sit down. No further advocacy is necessary.





Not really. The players aren't arguing that they will be harmed today or tomorrow. After all, they sought a preliminary injunction but not a temporary restraining order (an ex parte order usually entered, if merited, on the day its sought), despite the fact that the two are frequently sought together. No, I think she's simply giving the NFL a chance to work something out before she brings down the hammer. Believe it or not, most judges don't want to be the central figure in resolving a high profile business dispute like this. They'd much prefer the parties work it out on their own. But if forced to decide, they will. Much in the way that Judge Doty waited a couple of weeks before handing down his decision that ripped the NFL a new one on the lockout payments. I could be wrong, but I suspect Judge Nelson could have ruled today if she wanted to. She's giving the NFL a chance. If they decide not to take it, and don't resolve this soon, she will drop the hammer.



If anybody is offering even money on the NFL at this point, I'll take some of that action...

GREAT POST! (obviously)

Thanks Much!

 

[BrassCowboy]

No, I know your argument ... that the trainer at the local YMCA is every bit as good as Mike Woicik, so it's no big loss. I just disagree with the premise, and apparently NFL teams do as well since they've been pressuring the players to work out in their offseason program at their facilities, under their supervision, under their staff every offseason before this one. I would also note that Jerry pays Mike Woicik a hell of a lot more than the trainer at the local YMCA for a reason.

And you also fail to address how players also don't just compete as collective teams for Ws and Ls, but also compete individually within the same organization for jobs. A undrafted free agent rookie competing in training camp for a 53rd roster spot against a 2nd, 3rd or 4th year veteran absolutely needs minicamps and an legit NFL offseason to overcome the difference in experience and several years head start in the full time training of being a professional athlete. To deny him that is causing irreperable harm to his potential NFL career.

ok, fair enough...

i would say then I guess the players should hammer out a deal with the NFL, but it looks like they are gonna get the courts to force their employer to allow them in

 

[Nightshade]

We can't pile all this on the owners either. The NFLPA left the bargaining table before they needed to so they could force the owner's hand. The owner's were still trying to negotiate.

Again, Extremely rich people arguing over how to divide a gigantic pie that we all baked together.

Kudos to Judge Nelson for seeing the forest for the trees.

Shut your mouths, get in your Porche's and Bentleys, get back to work and get it done! we're ALL tired of waiting. The draft is almost here for gosh sakes. These Rooks have to get to minicamp. How's Peterson going to learn Ryan's defense sitting in an LSU dorm room?

 

[JD_KaPow]

As for arguing that the players only want what they already had, I've never seen a Union say, "everything is fine with us the way it is. Let's make the same contract we did last time."

You've never paid attention to sports CBA negotiations, then. There's a long history of givebacks from players to owners, starting with the very first MLB agreement after they won free agency. Also in MLB, the players' starting position was exactly the status quo in '94-'95 and again in 2003 or whenever the last one was. There's nothing at all unusual with a players' union's bargaining position starting with the status quo.

 

[InmanRoshi]

ok, fair enough...

i would say then I guess the players should hammer out a deal with the NFL, but it looks like they are gonna get the courts to force their employer to allow them in

Yep. That happens when employers are breaking laws.

 

[5Stars]

If the point was to expand upon the relevance of the legal argument, it most certainly has SOMETHING to do with the legal aspects. You simply missed it.

1. Players skipping voluntary workouts harms players.
2. Voluntary workouts lead to players skipping workouts.
3. Therefore, voluntary workouts harm players.

Yes, I would be agreeing to a harm. I would also be agreeing to a benefit -- the benefit of choice. Nobody in their right mind would claim that the harm outweighs the benefit in your specific scenario. That is because there are facts specific to your scenario that make such a determination reasonable. However, when you change the facts, the same determination may not be reasonable.

1. Players skipping voluntary workouts harms players.

Yes, they harm themselves by not voluntarily working out

2. Voluntary workouts lead to players skipping workouts.

Yes, they harm themselves by not voluntarily working out

3. Therefore, voluntary workouts harm players.

Yes, they harm themselves by not voluntarily working out

:laugh2:


WTH?

Is that some sort of confused circular logic?
:drunk:

Now, if you substituted the word "voluntary" with "mandatory" then that might make sense.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Yep. That happens when employers are breaking laws.

how exactly are they breaking laws when they own the business, and no I really do not care about antitrust part of it.

This is my opinion so you can throw antitrust regulations laws and whatever you want at it but I don't care - if a company does not want to be open for business, the employees have to deal with it. Now as far as legal contracts have been signed, those players who are at present under contract - pay them as scheduled under the contract. Does not mean football HAS to be played.

You can not justify ANY business being forced to stay open against their will no matter what laws or opinions are out there, but I do understand contracts being paid because that is an agreement and money is a livelihood and should be honored under contractual situations.

 

[theogt]

how exactly are they breaking laws when they own the business, and no I really do not care about antitrust part of it.

:laugh2:

So, ignoring the law, how are they breaking the law?

 

[Beast_from_East]

how exactly are they breaking laws when they own the business, and no I really do not care about antitrust part of it.

This is my opinion so you can throw antitrust regulations laws and whatever you want at it but I don't care - if a company does not want to be open for business, the employees have to deal with it. Now as far as legal contracts have been signed, those players who are at present under contract - pay them as scheduled under the contract. Does not mean football HAS to be played.

You can not justify ANY business being forced to stay open against their will no matter what laws or opinions are out there, but I do understand contracts being paid because that is an agreement and money is a livelihood and should be honored under contractual situations.

What you are not understanding my friend is that the NFL is not a single entity. If it was, you are 100% correct that any business in America can shut their doors if they want.

The problem is that the NFL is made up of 32 seperate entities, the individual teams. So when all 32 teams make a decision (such as to lock out the players) this is not 1 business closing its doors, it is 32 seperate businesses acting as one.

That is the textbook definition of a collusion (multiple entities acting as one) and is about as blantant a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act that there is.

The players know this, the NFL knows this, and the judge knows this. That is why the owners got their balls handed to them in court yesterday. The injunction will be granted by the judge in 2 weeks, count on it.

 

[JD_KaPow]

how exactly are they breaking laws when they own the business, and no I really do not care about antitrust part of it.

This is my opinion so you can throw antitrust regulations laws and whatever you want at it but I don't care - if a company does not want to be open for business, the employees have to deal with it. Now as far as legal contracts have been signed, those players who are at present under contract - pay them as scheduled under the contract. Does not mean football HAS to be played.

You can not justify ANY business being forced to stay open against their will no matter what laws or opinions are out there, but I do understand contracts being paid because that is an agreement and money is a livelihood and should be honored under contractual situations.

OK, so let's suppose each owner, independently, decides to shut down his team (rather than, say, sell it). He pays the players all the money they're due under contract. He pays off the stadium lease. He pays all the suppliers and concessionaires and everyone else who's under contract with the team. He fires everyone who works there. Basically, he pays out a ton of money AND loses his entire initial investment in the team. Let's suppose that all 32 of them could do all these things with no legal repurcussions.

I'm left with one question: why would anyone in his right mind do this?

 

[Hostile]

OK, so let's suppose each owner, independently, decides to shut down his team (rather than, say, sell it). He pays the players all the money they're due under contract. He pays off the stadium lease. He pays all the suppliers and concessionaires and everyone else who's under contract with the team. He fires everyone who works there. Basically, he pays out a ton of money AND loses his entire initial investment in the team. Let's suppose that all 32 of them could do all these things with no legal repurcussions.

I'm left with one question: why would anyone in his right mind do this?

I read his post. I read this response twice. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[BrassCowboy]

What you are not understanding my friend is that the NFL is not a single entity. If it was, you are 100% correct that any business in America can shut their doors if they want.

The problem is that the NFL is made up of 32 seperate entities, the individual teams. So when all 32 teams make a decision (such as to lock out the players) this is not 1 business closing its doors, it is 32 seperate businesses acting as one.

That is the textbook definition of a collusion (multiple entities acting as one) and is about as blantant a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act that there is.

The players know this, the NFL knows this, and the judge knows this. That is why the owners got their balls handed to them in court yesterday. The injunction will be granted by the judge in 2 weeks, count on it.

thank you Beast for making that pretty clear....


just curious, and i understand what you said about being 32 separate entities, could the NFL just screw the rules all up to make the game unplayable or atleast un-enjoyable say make TDs worth 1 point, 50 yards to get 1st down, etc...?

Now, I understand it would be quite a move and no one in the NFL would consider it, just for my own sense of understanding, could that be possible seeing that all the 32 separate entities agree to compete against each other using NFL rules.

so when the injunction is lifted, the only options the NFL as a league has is to give the players EVERYTHING they want or face the idea of undoing everything that makes them in violation of the antitrust laws, stuff like draft and restrictive free agency rules - correct?

my question is, why would the players even want to re-enter into negotiations? Might as well send the NFL a list of demands and say thats it or see you in court.

Like the players positon or not, how is that foundation any good in the name of fairness?

another question, could an individual team decide to lock out players? really it would only take a team or two to do halt the whole league anyways I would think. it would not be collusion or atleast hard to prove if only one or two teams do it.

 

[Beast_from_East]

thank you Beast for making that pretty clear....


just curious, and i understand what you said about being 32 separate entities, could the NFL just screw the rules all up to make the game unplayable or atleast un-enjoyable say make TDs worth 1 point, 50 yards to get 1st down, etc...?

Now, I understand it would be quite a move and no one in the NFL would consider it, just for my own sense of understanding, could that be possible seeing that all the 32 separate entities agree to compete against each other using NFL rules.

so when the injunction is lifted, the only options the NFL as a league has is to give the players EVERYTHING they want or face the idea of undoing everything that makes them in violation of the antitrust laws, stuff like draft and restrictive free agency rules - correct?

my question is, why would the players even want to re-enter into negotiations? Might as well send the NFL a list of demands and say thats it or see you in court.

Like the players positon or not, how is that foundation any good in the name of fairness?

another question, could an individual team decide to lock out players? really it would only take a team or two to do halt the whole league anyways I would think. it would not be collusion or atleast hard to prove if only one or two teams do it.

As far as changing the rules and making a TD worth 1 point for example....yes, the owners are well within their rights to change the rules that govern the game. The reason is because the rules of the game do not affect any aspect of creating a competitive market. Now if the owners want to restrict free agency to 8 years for example, this would be a violation because it restricts player movement and prevents them from marketing their skills to the highest bidder.

As to your other question of why the players should even bother to negotiate.....it is still in their long term best interest to have a CBA. With a CBA you have salary floors, you have benefits being funded, you have a set number of practices, you have arbitration for conflicts, and you have virtually all the rules in place so teams cannot take advantage of players.

That is why the players were more than happy to "keep the status quo" with the old CBA, it is the owners that opted out after all.

The antitrust lawsuit is basically "the nuclear option" if you will. The players dont want to do away with the draft, salary cap, free agency, or any of the other things they are suing over. They are using this to try to force the owners to cave in and basically "opt back in" to the old CBA (with maybe a couple of percentage points knocked off to make it look like they worked with the owners).

The antitrust lawsuit is just a last resort if the owners just refuse.

 

[Shrevedude1]

I would hate it so much if this stupid lockout kept the NFL season from happening...

 

[Beast_from_East]

I would hate it so much if this stupid lockout kept the NFL season from happening...

Dont worry, the players will get their injunction in 2 weeks.

 

[dogberry]

Did not the last CBA give the owners the right to leave the CBA?

 

[Beast_from_East]

Did not the last CBA give the owners the right to leave the CBA?

Yes, the last CBA had an "opt out" clause that allowed the owners to basically void the contract.


The problem is that the owners didnt stop and take time to realize that without a CBA, most of what they do is illegal (lockout, salary cap, franchise tags, draft, ect......)


The CBA basically included an "antitrust excemption" which allowed for all of those things. The problem is that with no CBA there is no antitrust exemption.


Basically the owners are SOL.

 

[DallasEast]

Yes, the last CBA had an "opt out" clause that allowed the owners to basically void the contract.

The problem is that the owners didnt stop and take time to realize that without a CBA, most of what they do is illegal (lockout, salary cap, franchise tags, draft, ect......)

The CBA basically included an "antitrust excemption" which allowed for all of those things. The problem is that with no CBA there is no antitrust exemption.

I do not seriously believe that anyone truly accepts that the owners do not fully comprehend the legal ramifications which a collective bargaining agreement encompasses. They are seemingly doing a poor job of accomplishing their goal, BUT that singular goal is re-crafting a CBA which meets their financial expectations.

It may not be all of them, but there are enough owners behind this effort who do not desire returning to "business as usual. Define their actions as missteps. I, for one, will not argue against it, since I acknowledge the enormous greed motivations of both parties for which each are equally guilty of.

However, the new CBA which they are seeking, prompted them to opt-out of the last one. It drove them to create 'lockout insurance', which fell through. They hoped to bluff their way to a new one by weakly threatening a lockout, which the trade association called their bluff by countering with a long-held decertification/litigation card. And it is urging them to pull the NFLPA* back to the negotiating table under the guise of federal mediation to hammer one out in their favor.

Who knows how many more legal and non-legal contingencies which the owners and their legal staff have preplanned for? Still, let's remain realistic about whom the decertified players are dealing with. Their strategy may be faulty, but these are not stupid and misguided people. They are seeking a means to an end, which does NOT preclude plans which are totally dependent upon court decisions handed down in 2011.

These are billionaires who feel that their employees are dictating the terms for how they run the league and they are correct. They themselves are equally to blame for their own 'predicament', since they helped author the language of the previous CBAs which is working against their wishes. Yes, greed fuels their fight to gain what they think is theirs, but that same inclination empowers them to 'get what's theirs' by any and all means necessary.

No matter how this mess resolves itself in both the near and short-term, let's not imply that the owners are 'dummies' in any degree. Eventually, ALL of their efforts may be in vain, BUT they also have been briefed on all the risks involved as well.

Basically the owners are SOL.

You are right if the nonunion/union/litigants are successful in preventing the owners from gaining some or all of the concessions they are seeking from them in the next CBA in the future. Yet, if the owners can check off a few goals from their bucket list by eventually doing just that in 2011, 2012 or etc...

...well your definition of luck differs from theirs. In the final equation, it's just business and that's all good.

 

[firehawk350]

so when the injunction is lifted, the only options the NFL as a league has is to give the players EVERYTHING they want or face the idea of undoing everything that makes them in violation of the antitrust laws, stuff like draft and restrictive free agency rules - correct?

Most likely what would happen is the NFL would go back to the previously negotiated CBA. They can either go with the 2009 rules or the 2010 rules, whichever they think is most beneficial for the case. They'll probably go with 2010 rules, which doesn't have a salary floor and six years before UFA eligibility. We saw in 2010, FA market wasn't robust and I expect that to be the case in the 2011 FA under an injunction.

 

[CCBoy]

No matter how many high faluted concepts are used to push millions in personal revenues to multi-levels...it still boils down to owners having the contractual rights to determine the salary of those being employed. That has been the basis of the business world since the birth of Common Laws to this very time. That lucrative aspect, in this specific arrangement, can not be overlooked in trying to reassociate everything under the sun to mean something else. Even with thirty-two individual owners coming together in a sporting league...those same leagues are in competition among other sporting leagues as well as entertainment dollars that fill their own coffins.

To wield unproportioned power in a purely legalist manner, doesn't diminish the extremely high wages being guaranteed no matter the state of a CBA. The ruse of abused party in a worker's role can NOT cover up a total lack of desparity and NOT presenting anything more than a worker's sweat equity in the very arrangment that is being claimed as a right.

That alone defies logic as well as soundness of a defining need...beyond greed.