Probably a stupid question

[Zaxor]

but with the other pro league that is out there right now (UFL) how can the players claim they aren't able to apply their trade? plus there is the CFL though based in Canada it probably doesn't count but the UFL sure should.

 

[Yeagermeister]

They can't but they will. It's all about the money. They can't make the same type of money in the other leagues.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Would the players under contracts even be allowed to play in other leagues, even with a work stoppage?

 

[NinePointOh]

but with the other pro league that is out there right now (UFL) how can the players claim they aren't able to apply their trade? plus there is the CFL though based in Canada it probably doesn't count but the UFL sure should.

You can violate antitrust laws even when other companies exist in the marketplace. There are tons of software companies out there, but Microsoft has still lost plenty of antitrust suits. The NFL's actions are what is illegal, not the fact that there's no other league out there.

 

[Kevinicus]

You can violate antitrust laws even when other companies exist in the marketplace. There are tons of software companies out there, but Microsoft has still lost plenty of antitrust suits. The NFL's actions are what is illegal, not the fact that there's no other league out there.

If they've been exempted because of the union, how have they done anything illegal?

They certainly haven't done free agency, or a draft, or a cap or anything since the decertification.

And why does nobody talk about the antitrust laws being stupid (which they are)?

 

[burmafrd]

just because some corrupt politician passes a law and some lawyer wearing robes says its illegal does not mean its wrong.

And the law changes constantly.

Remember slavery used to be legal. Women could not vote or own property.
Murdering someone used to mean that person got hung.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

just because some corrupt politician passes a law and some lawyer wearing robes says its illegal does not mean its wrong.

And the law changes constantly.

Remember slavery used to be legal. Women could not vote or own property.
Murdering someone used to mean that person got hung.

Strange comparisons to football. Wow.

 

[Stautner]

They can't make the same type of money in the other leagues.

But that's not the legal point. When someone makes a legal claim that someone is preventing them from plying their trade, they can't say there are no other options for them simply because other options may not pay as well. Working for the NFL as opposed to the CFL or UFL is not a right.

 

[Jarv]

just because some corrupt politician passes a law and some lawyer wearing robes says its illegal does not mean its wrong.

And the law changes constantly.

Remember slavery used to be legal. Women could not vote or own property.
Murdering someone used to mean that person got hung.

What's wrong with hanging a murderer ?

 

[NinePointOh]

If they've been exempted because of the union, how have they done anything illegal? They certainly haven't done free agency, or a draft, or a cap or anything since the decertification.

The presence of a union doesn't mean the practice is legal. The union only exempts the NFL from being sued for it.

And why does nobody talk about the antitrust laws being stupid (which they are)?

Perhaps because most people have no idea what the antitrust laws say or why they're there.

 

[Kevinicus]

The presence of a union doesn't mean the practice is legal. The union only exempts the NFL from being sued for it.

So the players are now suing now that that exemption is over with....What practice has the NFL done since that exemption lifted that they can sue for?

I don't see how the players can sue for practices that they agreed to via collective bargaining.

 

[NinePointOh]

It doesn't matter that the practice was in place before the union decertified. Again, the union doesn't affect whether the practice is legal or illegal -- the NFL just can't be sued while there is a player's union. They can be sued for practices which were in place when there was a player's union. The owners specifically agreed to this when the last agreement was signed.

 

[Kevinicus]

It doesn't matter that the practice was in place before the union decertified. Again, the union doesn't affect whether the practice is legal or illegal -- the NFL just can't be sued while there is a player's union. They can be sued for practices which were in place when there was a player's union. The owners specifically agreed to this when the last agreement was signed.

To bring a lawsuit does one not have to be an "injured" party? How can the players be such a party if they were complicit in such policies?

 

[NinePointOh]

To bring a lawsuit does one not have to be an "injured" party? How can the players be such a party if they were complicit in such policies?

Because with the CBA no longer in force, there is no longer an agreement to that effect. They are asking for an injunction against the continuation of those practices.

 

[Kevinicus]

Because with the CBA no longer in force, there is no longer an agreement to that effect. They are asking for an injunction against the continuation of those practices.

See, now that makes sense. That is what should be stated in every article instead of such and such "is suing the NFL for violation of antitrust laws...yada yada yada." Suing to stop FUTURE violations is completely different.

Specifics have lost their place in journalism.

 

[NinePointOh]

Nvm. Wrong thread.
http://www.macsfootballblog.com/2011/02/nflpa-made-concessions-on-rookie-wage.html

 

[NinePointOh]

See, now that makes sense. That is what should be stated in every article instead of such and such "is suing the NFL for violation of antitrust laws...yada yada yada." Suing to stop FUTURE violations is completely different.

Specifics have lost their place in journalism.

To be fair, the NFLPA brief does claim that the NFL has been in violation of the law for years (which would be accurate whether or not the players agreed to it). It is unclear to me exactly what remedy they believe they're entitled to as a result of that, but the main crux of the suit seems be about the injunction.

 

[Beast_from_East]

To be fair, the NFLPA brief does claim that the NFL has been in violation of the law for years (which would be accurate whether or not the players agreed to it). It is unclear to me exactly what remedy they believe they're entitled to as a result of that, but the main crux of the suit seems be about the injunction.

Exactly, it is going to be very hard for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning to claim they have been "financially hurt" by previous actions of the league that were in violation of the antitrust laws.


However, it is very easy for Peyton Manning (who is a free agent and was tagged by the Colts) to show how the Colts restricting his movement is financially damaging to him right now. Look at it this way, if Peyton Manning was an unrestricted free agent and could sign wtih any team in the league, how much money do you think somebody would offer him? I am pretty sure he would be offered more than the average of the top 5 that he is going to get being franchised, in fact he would probably sign the richest contract in the history of the game.


Seems pretty clear to me that any judge worth his salt would agree that franchise tags are indeed a violation of the antitrust laws. In a competitive free market, one company cannot prevent an employee from going to work for a competitor when that employee's contract has expired. A freaking first year law student could win this case if it gets to court.


Bottom line..........with no CBA, the owners are going to get thier balls handed to them in the courtroom. That is why I am pretty sure it will never get that far, the owners will give in and if nothing else just extend that last CBA to prevent the case from going to court.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

I disagree Beast.


Companies fire people with a no compete clause all the time.

Manning being paid as a top 5 player at his position at this stage of his career should be considered fair.

I don't see the players having any more leverage than saying we are the top players in the world right now. The owners can simply say ...exactly ...right now. And move on to the bigger better thing, or turn the page to start along those lines.

 

[KJJ]

Would the players under contracts even be allowed to play in other leagues, even with a work stoppage?

Not sure but they would be foolish to do it and risk a career ending injury playing for peanuts.