Supreme Court denies NFL's plea for anti-trust protection

Until the players sue the league and claim that the law is unconstitutional, then it winds its way to the Supreme Court, and they're back where they started.

 

NFL luxury boxes are packed with politicians for a very good reason.

 

Haven't we been down this road before? Like circa 1985 with the USFL.

Yes, you're a monopoly. So what? Here's your $1 in damages, tripled to $3. Have a nice lunch!

 

Damages would not be monetary, they would come from voiding contracts, which would happen. AQB, I would also point out the decertification threat worked for the players. They got free agency. Football players don't have it as good as their basketball and baseball brethren, but they make much, much more money than they did back then, on average as well as the top-line salaries.
Attempts to give other sports besides baseball antitrust exemptions have died quiet deaths in Congress for a long time now. The last exemption football got was for the AFL-NFL merger, and its price was the creation of the Saints to satisfy the late Hale Boggs.

 

Not a chance. Please note that in baseball, where the industry has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption forever, the MLBPA was successful in its push to create a carve-out in that exemption that allows it to seek court remedy in cases of labor anti-trust.

The thinking is that the Curt Flood Act could help baseball avoid work stoppages because it provides employees a legal alternative (that they didn't have in '94-'95). A packaged decertification and individual challenge become a valid (if still last resort) option for the players.

I would also like to point out that American Needle was the most over-discussed cases in the history of sports business. A lot of pro-management people were salivating over the possibility of a legal green light to crush some sports unions and it was NEVER going to happen. The NFL rolled the dice but those guys are way too smart to think they were going to win this.

 

Cran, the Supreme Court reporters I heard and read discussing this case when it was argued all predicted (incorrectly) that the Court would issue a narrow ruling in favor of the NFL in this particular case, not a sweeping exemption. That was what the league was likely betting on.

 

You're right. All the pre-SCOTUS decision conjecture from the smart guys was that the Supremes would issue a narrow ruling in favor of the NFL and brush off its attempt for an all-encompassing judgment.

 

The NFL and NBA and MLB are still going to crush their respective unions to dust in upcoming CBA/strike/lockout episodes.

 

Certainly not happening to the MLBPA and, for a variety of reasons, I think both the football players and basketball players are in better position than the last time around. I'm beginning to like D. Smith's chances of taking the NFLPA in a better, more independent direction

 

Interesting Ad Age article:

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Lucrative marketing and licensing deals between apparel makers and professional sports leagues could forever change in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court decision that an antitrust lawsuit against the National Football League can go forward.

http://adage.com/article?article_id=144072

 

I just want NFL-licensed Zubaz pants to come back.

 

That was because the jury felt that the USFL shouldn't have moved to the fall. They felt that by moving to the fall, they were asking for the NFL to squash them.