American Needle vs. NFL

[SmootSmack]

This is a pivotal case for pro sports the US Supreme Court is hearing. JoeRedskin I'm looking in your direction to dumb it down to layman's terms for us.

Supreme Court to weigh NFL and antitrust laws - latimes.com

On Jan. 13, the pro football owners will be asking the high court to rule for the first time that the NFL is shielded from antitrust laws because, while its teams compete on the playing field, they function in business as a "single entity."

If the justices were to agree, the ramifications could be significant, not just for football but all pro sports leagues, say experts in sports law. Freed from the antitrust laws, owners could get together to restrict salaries for players and coaches and raise prices for everything from tickets to stocking caps.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

This is a pivotal case for pro sports the US Supreme Court is hearing. JoeRedskin I'm looking in your direction to dumb it down to layman's terms for us.

Supreme Court to weigh NFL and antitrust laws - latimes.com

On Jan. 13, the pro football owners will be asking the high court to rule for the first time that the NFL is shielded from antitrust laws because, while its teams compete on the playing field, they function in business as a "single entity."

If the justices were to agree, the ramifications could be significant, not just for football but all pro sports leagues, say experts in sports law. Freed from the antitrust laws, owners could get together to restrict salaries for players and coaches and raise prices for everything from tickets to stocking caps.

That's Joe's specialty -- dumbing it down

[jamf]

For some reason I thought this was about tattoo artist using NFL logos.

[Lotus]

This issue may seem small and legalistic but actually it is very important to us all, as SS tried to indicate.

In the 1970's the NFL was not exactly like, but kind of like, a slave set-up. The owners were gods who could pay much smaller salaries relative to today and keep players forever because there was no free agency. Teams stuck together more but you also had downsides like Archie Manning's spending his entire career on sucky teams because he had no option to move. And training camp holdouts were more common because that was about the only leverage that a player had. Then a series of legal battles surrounding anti-trust law moved the advantage in the players' direction, resulting in free agency, high salaries, etc., as well as "parity" (to the extent that it exists). What this case will do, possibly, is undo all of this history and make owners football gods again.

I'm not a legal expert and I've never linked to PFT before, but Florio was a lawyer before he ran a football Web site, and he has more information here.

As legalese as this all may seem, this case could dramatically change the way that the game we love is played.

[diehardskin2982]

no wonder the owners opted out of the cba. They may feel that can realisticly win this case

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

That's Joe's specialty -- dumbing it down

Finding this thread doesn't appear to be his specialty

[Rajmahal33]

I don't know if Brees actually wrote this article, but if he did, hats off to him.

washingtonpost.com

I really wish we would have gotten him back when he was available. I especially liked the shot at Jones and Snyder at the end.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Rajmahal33

I don't know if Brees actually wrote this article, but if he did, hats off to him.

washingtonpost.com

I really wish we would have gotten him back when he was available. I especially liked the shot at Jones and Snyder at the end.

I didn't take it as a shot.. he was just mentioning that no Cowboys or Redskins affiliated person (owner, fans, etc) would consider the two teams part of a single entity; seemed more like he was talking about the rivalry than anything else.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

No free agency would be horrible for teams who can't draft worth a lick.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I didn't take it as a shot.. he was just mentioning that no Cowboys or Redskins affiliated person (owner, fans, etc) would consider the two teams part of a single entity; seemed more like he was talking about the rivalry than anything else.

In fact I thought it basically weakened his well written article. I think JJ and DS would whole heartedly agree that both teams work within the single entity that is the NFL, that while Dallas or Washington may aggressively work to better their position, they are not competing against the NFL, but more so as maybe to divisions within IBM might compete, the northeast division striving to top the southern area in sales etc. Definitely will be interesting to see how this turns out.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

No free agency would be horrible for teams who can't draft worth a lick.

Yes. But what we saw decades ago was even worse. Because owners could do whatever they wanted, some chose to be super cheap, even if it meant losing. Those who were truly interested in winning built impregnable dynasties. So there was not much competitive balance, whether one drafted well or not. On Sept. 1 of each year you knew who was going to win and who was going to lose, more or less. Teams rarely went worst to first or the other way around as they do now. As much as football was great even then, it was more boring than the relatively wide open cap era.

It also was, arguably, an assault on the democratic free market. If I am a plumbing assistant, I can sell my services to whatever plumbing company will pay me the most. But without free agency, players have no opportunity to sell their services to the highest bidder. They are shut out from finding a market-based wage.

[FRPLG]

To me the competition is the product. All the teams work together to create the product. It's definitely not cut and dry though.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yes. But what we saw decades ago was even worse. Because owners could do whatever they wanted, some chose to be super cheap, even if it meant losing. Those who were truly interested in winning built impregnable dynasties. So there was not much competitive balance, whether one drafted well or not. On Sept. 1 of each year you knew who was going to win and who was going to lose, more or less.

i agree with you but i heard something interesting a while ago. there is a minimum salary cap now (70 something mill?). teams have to spend atleast the min in salary to players.

the bucs this past offseason were well below the min cap number. so they gave two of their lowest paid players an incentive bonus contract to bump them up and within the min salary cap requirement.

guess what the bonus incentives called four? something ridiculus like 12 blocked kicks this season.

probably not super relevant but i found that interesting.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yes. But what we saw decades ago was even worse. Because owners could do whatever they wanted, some chose to be super cheap, even if it meant losing. Those who were truly interested in winning built impregnable dynasties. So there was not much competitive balance, whether one drafted well or not. On Sept. 1 of each year you knew who was going to win and who was going to lose, more or less. Teams rarely went worst to first or the other way around as they do now. As much as football was great even then, it was more boring than the relatively wide open cap era.

It also was, arguably, an assault on the democratic free market. If I am a plumbing assistant, I can sell my services to whatever plumbing company will pay me the most. But without free agency, players have no opportunity to sell their services to the highest bidder. They are shut out from finding a market-based wage.

The current system has its flaws, but its worked incredibly well. Even if the NFL wins this suit, I hope theyre smart enough to avoid going back to those dark days. Free agency has to stay. Now, i'd be fine if teams could slap a franchise tag on a player indefinitely, so long as they continued to pay the player the average of the top 5 players at that position plus 10% each year.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i agree with you but i heard something interesting a while ago. there is a minimum salary cap now (70 something mill?). teams have to spend atleast the min in salary to players.

the bucs this past offseason were well below the min cap number. so they gave two of their lowest paid players an incentive bonus contract to bump them up and within the min salary cap requirement.

guess what the bonus incentives called four? something ridiculus like 12 blocked kicks this season.

probably not super relevant but i found that interesting.

Oh, that's relevant. The Bucs were trying to cheat the cap system. You can be sure that players will bring up things like that in court and/or in CBA negotiations.