Ongoing CBA discussions

GhettoDog, NFL is a monopoly. Remember what happened in the US when monopolies went unchecked by the federal government in the early 1900's?

Because the NFL is what it is, it has to be regulated.

Original post was deleted because it would have resulted in a threadjacking.

Certainly unique, but the legal issues w/anti-trust & labor law obviously apply to the nfl. I get what you're saying but at the same time it seems some general business principles/laws apply to the nfl. Maybe it's the quality of the comparisons that's the problem, I know the more I read about this the more I realize I don't know.

Most likely. If I have to hear another caller on NFL Radio compare the CBA situation to walking in to your boss and asking to see their books I'm prolly gonna choke someone.

SBXVII, just because players accept their contracts doesn't mean the owners aren't screwing them. The NFL provides the best option/salary but that may not be "fair". The players just have to accept the salary, after a bit of negotiating because it is not like they can go to another company and make a comparable salary(UFL, etc.). I realize fair is subjective, but that is why the NFLPA wants to see the books in full.

You may claim the market determines what's fair, in terms of player salaries, but that goes back to my original point that pro football does not operate in a free-market environment.

Accounting fraud is hot.

Taxes are lame.

GhettoDog, NFL is a monopoly. Remember what happened in the US when monopolies went unchecked by the federal government in the early 1900's?

Because the NFL is what it is, it has to be regulated.

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

I feel like DeMaurice Smith deserves an "F Demaurice Smith" thread.

What if the NFL says that they are not a monopoly based on the UFL/CFL and other opportunities that the players are given. I am not saying that the NFL isn't the best football, but certainly the owners could make the argument that other options are now available. (I am thinking along the lines of when Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they were threatened with antitrust, but made the case that other players had come into their market share - HD Radio, Wifi, etc. and the courts accepted that Sirius XM could merge due those competing brands)

If they did, and the NFL were to move away from the CBA system to just open market, I wonder how the players would respond to no salary floor, no draft, no guaranteed benefits of a CBA.

I don't expect that this will happen, but it's not impossible either. Also, this is just a hypothetical based on the Sirius XM case.

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?