ESPN: NFL's Big Antitrust case

[MattFancy]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=4336261

Fast forward to a high-definition picture of sports late in 2010. Here is the news of the day, scrawling across the bottom of your TV screen or mobile Web device:

• LeBron James, who had been expecting a free-agency bonanza when his contract with the Cleveland Cavaliers expired after the 2009-2010 season, opens the 2010-11 season with … the Cavs, the only team with the right to sign him. Cleveland retains the NBA MVP by slotting his salary into the new league-wide scale.

• Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier, the hottest commodity for every opening in the NFL over the past six months, signs on to be the new head coach of the Dallas Cowboys … at a league-determined salary that will pay him far less than he'd have made if the Denver Broncos had chosen him over Josh McDaniels in 2009.

• The Ricketts family, new owner of the Chicago Cubs, scraps plans for its own cable channel because Major League Baseball has barred all such broadcasts, as well as webcasts, by individual teams.

• A young Detroit Red Wings fan who has saved his pennies for months shells out $300 to buy a replica sweater that would have cost him $80 in 2009.

• Lockouts and strikes loom large in all four major team sports as an era of relative peace on the sports labor front ends and owners begin to exercise their new power over player unions.

Unlikely?

Discouraging?

It could happen

This would be crazy if it happened. The leagues would have alot of control over ther unions and everything else. This will be an interesting case to follow.

[ACW]

:ahhhhh:..

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I need to do more research on the case and - frankly - anti-trust law in general. The only experience I have in it is a labor law class I took in '98. But if what I am reading is correct, the league wants to be viewed as one entertainment company with 32 separate divisions. Not a group of 32 teams operating under an agreement. At that point, the players would, it seems, became employees of the league - paid through their individual subsidiary in a sense.

I find it hard to imagine the league winning this recognition, but if it did...wow. In theory, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas could side with the league. But I wonder if they would view this the proper case to do it under. Roberts huge issues are standing and ripeness. Broadly speaking, he doesn't think anyone has standing to do anything. Would he allow this kind of back-door legal maneuvering to establish this sweeping a precedent?

[MattFancy]

I need to do more research on the case and - frankly - anti-trust law in general. The only experience I have in it is a labor law class I took in '98. But if what I am reading is correct' date=' the league wants to be viewed as one entertainment company with 32 separate divisions. Not a group of 32 teams operating under an agreement. At that point, the players would, it seems, became employees of the league - paid through their individual subsidiary in a sense.

I find it hard to imagine the league winning this recognition, but if it did...wow. In theory, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas could side with the league. But I wonder if they would view this the proper case to do it under. Roberts huge issues are standing and ripeness. Broadly speaking, he doesn't think anyone has standing to do anything. Would he allow this kind of back-door legal maneuvering to establish this sweeping a precedent?[/quote']

I'm with you on this, I don't really know enough about it to be that well informed. But it seems like it would change alot of things if the league were to win. Esentially if they did win, the leagues would be able to do whatever they wanted almost because they'd be exempt from antitrust laws. The owners would have all the power it sounds like. This doesn't seem good for the players and fans if the NFL wins.

[Heidenreich]

I saw this story a couple of days ago.

Sports will not end as we know it because of this case. This story is the writers' "doomsday" scenario. I don't see how this will lead to mass collusion & sky-high prices. The cost of games & merchandise will always be what the public will pay.

[MattFancy]

I saw this story a couple of days ago.

Sports will not end as we know it because of this case. This story is the writers' "doomsday" scenario. I don't see how this will lead to mass collusion & sky-high prices. The cost of games & merchandise will always be what the public will pay.

I don't think we'd see huge increases. But, I'd be pretty sure we'd some some sort of price increase, just because they could. My grandfather's seat for the Skins are $100 a piece. I could see Snyder raising them another $5 or so under this.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I saw this story a couple of days ago.

Sports will not end as we know it because of this case. This story is the writers' "doomsday" scenario. I don't see how this will lead to mass collusion & sky-high prices. The cost of games & merchandise will always be what the public will pay.

I don't think it would impact the fans' wallets much.

It would be a disaster for the players and media, however.

[HOF44]

This has to be defeated. What next the airlines group together as one entity providing air transport? They are after all in competition as much with other forms of transport as the NFL is with other entertainment entities.

This is much broader and more far reaching than just sports.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't think we'd see huge increases. But, I'd be pretty sure we'd some some sort of price increase, just because they could. My grandfather's seat for the Skins are $100 a piece. I could see Snyder raising them another $5 or so under this.

There's nothing stopping him from doing that now. I don't think you understand the case.

I'm not sure the writer understands the case.

I'm not sure I understand the case.

To me, the big issue would seem to be that Clinton Portis would no longer be offering his services to say, the Redskins and the Dolphins.

His services would be offered to the NFL and NBA and Paramount.

Since he has $0 value to the NBA and Paramount, there would no longer be a "bidding war" for his services.

If I am not mistaken, if this would happen, the huge issue that the only way the players could collectively bargain with the league would be if the league ALLOWED them to do so.

Where I think it will kick fans in the ass is the cost of merchandise, because the NFL will have huge power to dictate who can sell what. And that will drive down competition. Which will make licesning rights more expensive. Which will make items more expensive.

Again...I'm not completely up to speed on this.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This has to be defeated. What next the airlines group together as one entity providing air transport? They are after all in competition as much with other forms of transport as the NFL is with other entertainment entities.

This is much broader and more far reaching than just sports.

This was the big issue when the XM-Sirius merger went through. Sirius argued that it was in the "entertainment" business, not the satelillte radio business. So it was not a monopoly as the sole provider of satellite radio, because it was in competition with broadcast radio, Apple, etc.

[MattFancy]

There's nothing stopping him from doing that now. I don't think you understand the case.

I'm not sure the writer understands the case.

I'm not sure I understand the case.

To me' date=' the big issue would seem to be that Clinton Portis would no longer be offering his services to say, the Redskins and the Dolphins.

His services would be offered to the NFL and NBA and Paramount.

Since he has $0 value to the NBA and Paramount, there would no longer be a "bidding war" for his services.

If I am not mistaken, if this would happen, the huge issue that the only way the players could collectively bargain with the league would be if the league ALLOWED them to do so.

Where I think it will kick fans in the ass is the cost of merchandise, because the NFL will have huge power to dictate who can sell what. And that will drive down competition. Which will make licesning rights more expensive. Which will make items more expensive.

Again...I'm not completely up to speed on this.[/quote']

I see what you're saying. So it would be more merchandise wise that would increase instead of tickets and concessions.

I'm not to sure I understand the whole player movement part. So when JC is a FA next year, how would that work under this new system? Would we be the only team that has the right to him or can anyone sign him?

[HOF44]

Where you at Predicto?? Would love to hear you insight to this case and it's possible implications.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I see what you're saying. So it would be more merchandise wise that would increase instead of tickets and concessions.

I'm not to sure I understand the whole player movement part. So when JC is a FA next year, how would that work under this new system? Would we be the only team that has the right to him or can anyone sign him?

I don't know if it would be the end of free agency or simply the beginning of collusion.

Think of it this way if Apple and Microsoft got together and decided that all software engineers would be paid $X, they would be colluding.

Likewise if the 32 NFL teams decided that all QBs would be paid $X, they would be colluding.

However, if all 32 NFL teams were not actually competitors with each other but were simply part of a single entity called the NFL, they would not be colluding - as you cannot collude with yourself.

Again, I'm kind of talking out loud here, because I don't have Westlaw on this computer and can't find the Reggie White case to determine what the basis was for that decision.

I can't imagine that this would be a return to the reserve clause, but nothing would shock be anymore.

[MattFancy]

I don't know if it would be the end of free agency or simply the beginning of collusion.

Think of it this way if Apple and Microsoft got together and decided that all software engineers would be paid $X' date=' they would be colluding.

Likewise if the 32 NFL teams decided that all QBs would be paid $X, they would be colluding.

However, if all 32 NFL teams were not actually competitors with each other but were simply part of a single entity called the NFL, they would not be colluding - as you cannot collude with yourself.

Again, I'm kind of talking out loud here, because I don't have Westlaw on this computer and can't find the Reggie White case to determine what the basis was for that decision.

I can't imagine that this would be a return to the reserve clause, but nothing would shock be anymore.[/quote']

I see what you're saying. That makes sense. So they could use a pay scale that way the could get the players cheaper and the owners would have more money.

I just can't see this a good thing at all for the players.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is how my mind works: this reminds me in a way of when Vince McMahon admitted wrestling was fake so he no longer had to be governed by state athletic commissions. It's obviously not the same except that it is a sport attempting to get the courts to redefine what it actually is.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I see what you're saying. That makes sense. So they could use a pay scale that way the could get the players cheaper and the owners would have more money.

I just can't see this a good thing at all for the players.

More importantly, I think they would be able to come up with a sliding pay scale without the players input. But I would be able to speak on this a lot more intelligently if I actually had ever read and understood the Reggie White case. I also don't completely understand what this would do to the CBA.