Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.

depends on what the Redskins claim is. Owner vs. Owner you would be correct.

If the Redskins bring up unfair negotiating tactics and collusion against the NFLPA this could go in a different direction. Essentially this would be one Owner trying to defend the rights of all the players by filing a suit against his fellow business men.

More then likely it's own vs. owner though. The real issue on that end is:

1- was there a CAP? no.
2- did the Skins violate any laws? no because there was no CBA.
3- did the Skins agree to something then go against the agreement?

If the Skins didn't agree with the "agreement" (collusion) then its hard to say they broke a verbal contract (collusion). then there is the fact:

4- the NFL previewed the contracts, agreed with the contracts, and signed off on the contracts. It would be a different story if the Redskins did something behind the NFL's back with out their knowledge and then got caught, then a punishement would be understandable. In this case the league agreed to the contracts where and when they could have denied them and told the two teams to restructure them. The league didn't. Which should tell any common sense person as well as court that the NFL did not have a problem with the contracts. So no punishments should have been issued.

But.... if the Redskins are crying foul in regards to unfair labor practices against the players during the negotiations of the new CBA then I could see the Feds getting involved. The Redskins essentially would be the proof and evidence that the owners had an agreement and got involved in unfair labor/negotiating practices to screw the players out of money.

Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).

and... to finish my point..... the NFL almost has a duty to deny a contract that is not with in its guidlines. So had there been an agreement (unofficially) between the owners the NFL still had a duty to deny the contracts based off of the unofficial agreement. Instead they approved them which would indicate the contracts were ok and legal. If anyone should be punished it's whoever agreed to let the Skins make those deals.

Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).

I'm not 100% sure the Labor Department would disolve the whole CBA, what I am saying though is I could see the Labor Department saying clearly you (the NFL) engaged in unfair labor practices and from now on you'll lose your exemptions. If I remember correctly the government allowed the NFL to keep their exemptions.... the government does not have to allow them to though. So going nuclear could open a whole can of worms the owners don't want opened.

The further and further we get away from the settlement, the more it looks like the owners schooled the NFLPA.


Thats what I've been saying, and DeMaurice Smith trashed Gene Upshaw. The first CBA he negotiates is terrible.

I looked up the NFL's "Anti-Trust Exemptions" and basically there was the time when both leagues (NFC/AFC) were joining together to become one league and the Feds "gave" the league the exemptions in order to be able to come together as one league. If the feds took away the "exemptions" then basically the two leagues would be broken up again into to seperate entities. How that would affect the CBA, contracts, CAP, and future deals would be interesting.

Another time was when the NFL got sued by CBS for the NFL trying to sell package deals to the network instead of allowing each individual market to negotiate their own deals.

Then there was some hat company that had several teams contracted and the NFL decided to package a deal with Reebok so the small company sued the NFL for damages and the NFL won based on again the same reason that allowed them to package a deal to the networks.

Or simply put the Feds could take away this exemption also....lol...

Why Does the National Football League Deserve Tax-Exempt Status? | Sports Fans Coalition (http://sportsfans.org/2012/03/why-is-the-national-football-league-given-tax-exempt-status/)

depends on what the Redskins claim is. Owner vs. Owner you would be correct.

If the Redskins bring up unfair negotiating tactics and collusion against the NFLPA this could go in a different direction. Essentially this would be one Owner trying to defend the rights of all the players by filing a suit against his fellow business men.

He's correct. You may only seek damages for your own injuries. The Skins do not have standing to sue on behalf of the NFLPA or any players. Those parties stand on their own -- You can't sue me seeking to recover damages for injuries I might have done to your brother, only your brother has the right to sue me for those damages.

The NFLPA brought their action seeking remedies and lost. Fair and square and for sound legal reasons ("Oops, I didn't think it would mean that" is generally not seen a sound basis for allowing people to reopen lawsuits).


More then likely it's own vs. owner though. The real issue on that end is:

1- was there a CAP? no.
2- did the Skins violate any laws? no because there was no CBA.
3- did the Skins agree to something then go against the agreement?

If the Skins didn't agree with the "agreement" (collusion) then its hard to say they broke a verbal contract (collusion).

Just off the top of my head, I think anything doing with the collusion is bound to fail. The crux of the argument being it is a breach of contract to penalize the team for violating an agreement that was, at the time it existed, inherently illegal (i.e. the agreement to violate the "uncapped year" through collusion). I think, however, this fails b/c even, if they didn't completely comply with it, Snyder conspired to further it by failing to reveal it when it was in force.

As an example: A bunch of criminals agree not to sell their ill-gotten gains until the heat dies down. One, thinking he can get one-up the other criminals goes out and does just that. The others are miffed but don't dare do anything b/c it would lead the cops right to them. They all flee the country and, as soon as they cross the border, they beat up the rogue conspirator and take teh rest of his share away from him. The conspirator cannot sue for his share of the stolen goods back.

4- the NFL previewed the contracts, agreed with the contracts, and signed off on the contracts. It would be a different story if the Redskins did something behind the NFL's back with out their knowledge and then got caught, then a punishement would be understandable. In this case the league agreed to the contracts where and when they could have denied them and told the two teams to restructure them. The league didn't. Which should tell any common sense person as well as court that the NFL did not have a problem with the contracts. So no punishments should have been issued.

The argument that the contracts were approved by the League after the Skins followed the written rules of the league, I think probably holds water. I am betting that the Skins knew these contracts were objectionable and that they followed the procedural requirements for their approval by the League to a tee. Not an I undotted or a T uncrossed. In that case, the argument is that the League's penalty even though imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (as ruled by the arbiter) constituted a substantive violation of the owners' rules concerning contract approval.

The beauty of this second argument is that it leaves the collusion out of it - unless the NFL brings it up (i.e. Sure, we approved the contracts, but they knew, and were part of, a bad faith collusive agreement not to submit these contracts. If we had disapproved them, it would have shown us to be illegally colluding and damaged the negotiation process for everyone). In the end, the collusion comes out and everybody looks bad BUT, it forces the other owners to admit their bad faith and try to prove Snyder was part of it. If the Skins' lawyers thought it out this far, I am in awe of their subtle elegance.

Or simply put the Feds could take away this exemption also....lol...

Why Does the National Football League Deserve Tax-Exempt Status?*|*Sports Fans Coalition (http://sportsfans.org/2012/03/why-is-the-national-football-league-given-tax-exempt-status/)

That is shocking.

Sure, the Federal government could take away the various anti-trust and tax exemptions. However, both are legislative actions that would require an act of Congress to change. I suggest, despite the groundswell in the Washington area and in the media, this is not likely to occur. Lots of sound and fury, but if I'm advising the other owners its "lay low, say nice things, soft peddle the collusion as sharp negotiating tactics to preserve the intergrity of the game, etc.", nothing will come of this.

There may be an existing law that allows the Feds to punish parties who conduct bad faith negotiations in labor disputes. I said this in one of my early posts in the original thread - the NFLPA's suit exposed the conflict between to competing philosophical legal concepts: (1) A settlement is a settlement is a settlement; v. (2) Parties should not benefit from bad faith. B/c so much of labor negotiations requires good faith and b/c bad faith can be disguised and only exposed well after settlements have been reached, I would not be surprised if a Federal anti-trust statute existed to punish such behavior independent of any settlement agreements. Again, it may exist - it may not. If it does, I would not be surprised. I am just unaware of it.