Burgold Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Okay, so after the Union has decertified kept it same leadership, goals, agenda, lawyers, and membership and then went forward to sue on an anti-trust basis. Now, in the 1980's, I could see that. Today, is the NFL an monoply? I mean if players don't want to play for the NFL can't they play Arena Ball or UFL or with a number of other professional venues. Sure, they won't be paid as well, but the NFL does have "competition" and the players do have other "options" to shop their trade. Arena football at this point is an established and money making venture. Sure, the NFL or the public doesn't consider them rivals or equals, but they are in the same business. NFL players would be able to try out and probably get a job there. Maybe it's the difference between being an anchor of a major network primetime news show and an anchor on local cable tv. You're still a chemist whether you work for a police forensics lab, NIH, or one of the big pharmas. And you'd still be a professional football player if you accepted a gig with Arena, the UFL, or the NFL. So, I guess I'm asking is the NFL still a monopoly and is the player's association still a union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The NFL isn't a monopoly but it is the place that all players desire to be if they are to play pro football. How many can name a Arena Football or UFL star? I am not talking about guys who were in the NFL and ended up in the Arena or UFL leagues. I am talking about a guy that went there and is still there. Not many will come to mind because everyone is so focued on the NFL and the promotion of the NFL and its players through the media that no one knows these guys. So why it may not be a monopoly the popularity of the NFl is much higher than the other two. Until the other two leagues start pushing the NFL for time and popularity they will always be considered the minor leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Al Davis tried to break up the monopoly for decades through frequent law suits and drawn out court battles against the league. Thankfully the courts kept ruling against him. Long live the spirit of Pete Rozelle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The question is not whether it is a monopoly. The question is whether it behaves like a monopoly. And the answer to that is almost certainly "Yes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Some colleges pay just as well as the NFL...ask Cam Newton! I would say that it probably behaves like a monopoly, but I don't believe anyone will tinker with the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morningside Skins Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 You can have competition and still be a monopoly. There are two elements of a section 2 violation of the Sherman Act: (1) monopoly power and (2) anticompetitive conduct. Monopoly power is basically your share of the market, so in this case, the NFL has a vastly larger share of the professional football market compared to the UFL and Arena. However, you could also make a legit argument that the NFL competes with college football as well, and in that case, the NFL's market share would be a lot smaller. As for the conduct element, I'm not really sure if they have done anything anticompetitive to either the UFL or the Arena League, but their behavior towards the players in this lock out could be legitimately argued as anticompetitive since the players have pretty much no where else to go to in order to make a living. It should be interesting to watch all of this play out from a legal standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 If the NFL is one business, then yes it's a monopoly (it controls the "professional football market"). If the NFL is a collection of businesses, then the NFL is a cartel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Can someone go deeper into the description/definition though...what does the NFL do to prevent other leagues from starting and competing with them? If nothing, why should it be punished? Let's say I start a business making teleportation devices and people start flocking to this new technology. If no one ever starts a competing business against me, what is the "crime" that is being committed or rule that is being broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Can someone go deeper into the description/definition though...what does the NFL do to prevent other leagues from starting and competing with them? If nothing, why should it be punished? The league is engaged another type of anti-competitive conduct, e.g., colluding to place caps and other restrictions on player compensation,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The league is engaged another type of anti-competitive conduct, e.g., colluding to place caps and other restrictions on player compensation,. Right...but all within the umbrella of the NFL. I could start the TDWRFL tomorrow and pay players $100M per year if I wanted. The NFL does nothing to prevent that. I'm not arguing, just trying to understand how a monopoly is defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Right...but all within the umbrella of the NFL. I could start the TDWRFL tomorrow and pay players $100M per year if I wanted. The NFL does nothing to prevent that. I'm not arguing, just trying to understand how a monopoly is defined. Would the TDWRFL effectively control the "professional football market?" If not, no problem. If yes, then there would likely be a problem. How would you feel if 90% of computer software companies formed the "Computer Software League of America" and held meetings to fix prices and limit employee compensation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 I can get behind the behaving like a monopoly rationale esp. when we consider how the teams collude. Then again, so many businesses conspire to create artificial prices and structures. Is it a coincidence that all air fares are so similar in pricing? Do we accuse all the airfares of colluding. Now, with the NFL it's much more direct because they agreed with their union to collude. Sort of like how the UAW demanded that all U.S. auto workers be they at Ford, Toyota, or GM get certain benefits and pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Here is a good read that will give insight into what the courts think of the NFL being open to anti-trust issues. Court says 'no' to NFL antitrust immunity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Would the TDWRFL effectively control the "professional football market?" If not, no problem. If yes, then there would likely be a problem.How would you feel if 90% of computer software companies formed the "Computer Software League of America" and held meetings to fix prices and limit employee compensation? This is where I'm getting confused. Are you considering the NFL a company or are there 32 companies in the NFL? To me, since the teams share revenue, collectively bargain with players, etc., I consider the league the company. Therefore, the league isn't fixing prices with the CFL, AFL, UFL, or any other professional leagues that want to pop up. To me, that's the biggest difference in your example. If the teams are considered the individual companies, then the 32 NFL franchises make up barely half of the potential "companies" a player can work for and none of those companies share revenue with the NFL teams. Therefore, nothing is keeping someone from purchasing the Hartford Colonials and paying $300M in salaries for 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 This is where I'm getting confused. Are you considering the NFL a company or are there 32 companies in the NFL? To me, since the teams share revenue, collectively bargain with players, etc., I consider the league the company. Therefore, the league isn't fixing prices with the CFL, AFL, UFL, or any other professional leagues that want to pop up. To me, that's the biggest difference in your example. If the teams are considered the individual companies, then the 32 NFL franchises make up barely half of the potential "companies" a player can work for and none of those companies share revenue with the NFL teams. Therefore, nothing is keeping someone from purchasing the Hartford Colonials and paying $300M in salaries for 2011. The courts have ruled so far that the NFL is 32 separate companies. The burden is not on someone/thing to buy another entity and offer 300 million in salaries. If found that there are 32 teams that monetarily make up the bulk of pro football are colluding to fix player salaries that's enough to kick in anti-trust issue all by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I can get behind the behaving like a monopoly rationale esp. when we consider how the teams collude. Then again, so many businesses conspire to create artificial prices and structures. Is it a coincidence that all air fares are so similar in pricing? Do we accuse all the airfares of colluding. Now, with the NFL it's much more direct because they agreed with their union to collude. Sort of like how the UAW demanded that all U.S. auto workers be they at Ford, Toyota, or GM get certain benefits and pay. Federal prosecutors keep an eye on the airlines for signs of price fixing and multiple airlines have been hit with big fines for engaging in price fixing. See the latest example of such suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The courts have ruled so far that the NFL is 32 separate companies. The burden is not on someone/thing to buy another entity and offer 300 million in salaries. If found that there are 32 teams that monetarily make up the bulk of pro football are colluding to fix player salaries that's enough to kick in anti-trust issue all by itself. Thank you! I suppose that you could easily argue this is the case. Let's go back to the 1980s model when we were paying our back-up OL more than most teams could pay their starting OL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 Federal prosecutors keep an eye on the airlines for signs of price fixing and multiple airlines have been hit with big fines for engaging in price fixing. See the latest example of such suits. Yeah, but when I look at the prices whether it's a gallon of gas or the price of a hotel or the cost of a car... there's such similarity in price... now, we can say the market set that price, but did the market really decide that a comic book should be 5 bucks (or whatever it is today) and if Marvel decides that why does DC and all the others price equally. I think there's a heck of a lot more collusion then we care to acknowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I think there's a heck of a lot more collusion then we care to acknowledge. I'll acknowledge it, but seeing we are in the stadium I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 I'll acknowledge it, but seeing we are in the stadium I'll leave it at that. lol. Yeah, I am on thin ice with this thread, aren't I :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Yeah, but when I look at the prices whether it's a gallon of gas or the price of a hotel or the cost of a car... there's such similarity in price... now, we can say the market set that price, but did the market really decide that a comic book should be 5 bucks (or whatever it is today) and if Marvel decides that why does DC and all the others price equally. I think there's a heck of a lot more collusion then we care to acknowledge. Well, some fish definitely slip through the net cast by federal prosecutors. However, I don't think the fact that many types of products or services are similarly priced constitutes evidence of collusion. Companies price their products/services based on what they think the market will bear, which is based, at least in part, on what their competitors are charging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Two things to know about this: 1) Whether the NFL or any company is a monopoly generally depends on how you define the market. If you define the market as "professional football," then its most certainly a monopoly, regardless of the UFL or Arena League, because it has probably pretty close to 95% of the market power in the specific market for "professional football." If you define the market as professional sports, its less likely a monopoly. If you define the market as "entertainment," then its also less likely. You have to look at a whole host of factors to define the market, including its elasticity most importantly. 2) It is not illegal to be a monopoly. It is not an antitrust violation to merely exist as a monopoly. Boil it down and there are two things you can do to violate antitrust laws: 1) you can BECOME a monopoly in an unfair way; or 2) you can use your monopoly power in an unfair way. The players are going for #2. They still have to prove they are a monopoly, but then they also have to prove #2. ---------- Post added March-30th-2011 at 11:32 AM ---------- This is where I'm getting confused. Are you considering the NFL a company or are there 32 companies in the NFL? To me, since the teams share revenue, collectively bargain with players, etc., I consider the league the company. Therefore, the league isn't fixing prices with the CFL, AFL, UFL, or any other professional leagues that want to pop up. To me, that's the biggest difference in your example. If the teams are considered the individual companies, then the 32 NFL franchises make up barely half of the potential "companies" a player can work for and none of those companies share revenue with the NFL teams. Therefore, nothing is keeping someone from purchasing the Hartford Colonials and paying $300M in salaries for 2011. This is called the "Single Entity Theory." One thing you often need to have an antitrust violation is an "agreement." This will be one of the defenses of the league. These are good questions and insights, but the answers are out there in legal limbo, generally. If you're really interested in this, I'd start by reading the Curt Flood case, i.e. the actual opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 Yeah, butI recently had to buy some USB cables... they have about 50 cents in materials in them and yet every company chose to charge about 20 bucks for the cable. You would think if there wasn't "collusion" one company would decide to go for less profit and pick it up on the volume. Aack... I'm getting more Tailgate-y by the moment. I mean as one team may decide that they want to pay their back offensive linemen what others give starters, some do decide to keep back ups at the min. You'd think there'd be that kind of variance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Thanks Tulane, that clears things up for me. Great insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggosMohawk Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 In many NFL-monopoly articles I've read over the years, the anti-trust exemption is also needed to restrict team movement. In the eyes of the courts, if the NFL are 32 businesses, they cannot restrict one another from relocating to another location if they choose to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.