NBA Labor Pains

[Stitch]

Who paid for all those NBA arenas?

Taxpayers.

 

[Azrael]

But the owners take all the risk! They're Captains of Business! Captains! Of business!

 

[BTExpress]

Once again, we point out that all the things the owners want are restrictions on a free market. They are admitting their inability to compete.

The fact that there is a draft and a roster minimum and roster limit is a restriction on a free market. Everything else is just a tangent of those things.

 

[RickStain]

A freely negotiated labor deal is not a violation of the free market.

If you defined "free market" in that way, then all contracts of any variety would be a restriction of the free market, and that's of course an absurd, useless definition.

 

[Azrael]

A freely negotiated labor deal is not a violation of the free market.

If you defined "free market" in that way, then all contracts of any variety would be a restriction of the free market, and that's of course an absurd, useless definition.

How about a "negotiation" with a monopoly?

 

[Stitch]

A freely negotiated labor deal is not a violation of the free market.

If you defined "free market" in that way, then all contracts of any variety would be a restriction of the free market, and that's of course an absurd, useless definition.

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

 

[LongTimeListener]

If baseball players had been facing the same set of circumstances in the '70s or 1981, I have no doubt that they would have played in Europe (for far less) and kept their solidarity on principle. Marvin Miller and his successors were very successful in creating the concepts of unity and paying it forward. (Their advantage was in doing this at a time when players were making something far closer to "normal people" money, a large reason that pitch was successful.) That solidarity is 100 percent of the reason baseball players have been able to gain the riches and the tremendous CBA they now have. Even in '94, when salaries were astronomical, they stuck together and marched along and won.

If NBA players have similar solidarity -- and maybe a touch of craziness, showing that they won't bail from the car as it's headed toward the cliff -- they can win this showdown.

In '98, the players cracked. The owners are betting they'll do it again.

 

[Azrael]

A freely negotiated labor deal is not a violation of the free market.

If you defined "free market" in that way, then all contracts of any variety would be a restriction of the free market, and that's of course an absurd, useless definition.

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

We'll see. There's professional baseball in Japan, too.

MLB still needs an anti-trust exemption.

 

[Starman]

A freely negotiated labor deal is not a violation of the free market.

If you defined "free market" in that way, then all contracts of any variety would be a restriction of the free market, and that's of course an absurd, useless definition.

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

We'll see. There's professional baseball in Japan, too.

MLB still needs an anti-trust exemption.

They've got one. Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 1922. One of the most idiotic decisions ever handed down by any court.

 

[franklin lincoln]

A freely negotiated labor deal is not a violation of the free market.

If you defined "free market" in that way, then all contracts of any variety would be a restriction of the free market, and that's of course an absurd, useless definition.

Yes it is a violation of the free market, but federal labor law creates exceptions for those violations.

EDIT: From the Supreme Court, at a time when it was decidedly more liberal than it is today:

"There can be no doubt that the challenged practices of the NCAA constitute a 'restraint of trade' in the sense that they limit members' freedom to negotiate and enter into their own television contracts. In that sense, however, every contract is a restraint of trade, and as we have repeatedly recognized, the Sherman Act was intended to prohibit only unreasonable restraints of trade." Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85, 98 (1984)

 

[franklin lincoln]

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

This is patently false. The MLS argued that Division II soccer clubs (like those in the APSL) were market competitors with the Division I MLS.

The jury rejected the players' argument that the relevant market for professional soccer was only "Division I North American Soccer." The jury verdict didn't specify what it thought was the relevant market, only that it rejected the plaintiffs' argument.

The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's determination because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Division II teams competed with MLS. The First Circuit did NOT hold that there was sufficient evidence to support international market competition.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If baseball players had been facing the same set of circumstances in the '70s or 1981, I have no doubt that they would have played in Europe (for far less) and kept their solidarity on principle. Marvin Miller and his successors were very successful in creating the concepts of unity and paying it forward. (Their advantage was in doing this at a time when players were making something far closer to "normal people" money, a large reason that pitch was successful.) That solidarity is 100 percent of the reason baseball players have been able to gain the riches and the tremendous CBA they now have. Even in '94, when salaries were astronomical, they stuck together and marched along and won.

If NBA players have similar solidarity -- and maybe a touch of craziness, showing that they won't bail from the car as it's headed toward the cliff -- they can win this showdown.

In '98, the players cracked. The owners are betting they'll do it again.

That, plus the baseball owners had an 85-year history of nickel-and-diming the players for every little thing, to the point where they would flat-out lie during negotiations, the players figured that they had nothing to lose.

Catfish Hunter showed how much the players were truly worth. Finley tried to hold off on a bonus for a few days, even though he was contractually obligated to pay, and Hunter pointed out correctly that he violated the contract. The same contract that the owners clung to for 85 years. Of course, Finley was "no, no, it's just a minor thing, we made a little mistake." Didn't work.

While players today probably have little clue about the guys who came before them and their struggles, they know that they sure as hell don't want to be giving anything up.

 

[Stitch]

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

This is patently false. The MLS argued that Division II soccer clubs (like those in the APSL) were market competitors with the Division I MLS.

The jury rejected the players' argument that the relevant market for professional soccer was only "Division I North American Soccer." The jury verdict didn't specify what it thought was the relevant market, only that it rejected the plaintiffs' argument.

The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's determination because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Division II teams competed with MLS. The First Circuit did NOT hold that there was sufficient evidence to support international market competition.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html

The jurors thought overseas leagues bolstered MLS's argument.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/mls/news/2000/12/11/mls_suit/

It still doesn't change the fact NBA players would be on welfare without professional basketball.

 

[franklin lincoln]

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

This is patently false. The MLS argued that Division II soccer clubs (like those in the APSL) were market competitors with the Division I MLS.

The jury rejected the players' argument that the relevant market for professional soccer was only "Division I North American Soccer." The jury verdict didn't specify what it thought was the relevant market, only that it rejected the plaintiffs' argument.

The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's determination because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Division II teams competed with MLS. The First Circuit did NOT hold that there was sufficient evidence to support international market competition.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html

The jurors thought overseas leagues bolstered MLS's argument.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/mls/news/2000/12/11/mls_suit/

It still doesn't change the fact NBA players would be on welfare without professional basketball.

Jurors' out of court statement aren't dispositive here. What's more important is the First Circuit's opinion. There's a reason the First Circuit didn't mention the international market at all: There's serious doubt that under the Sherman Act you could argue that the relevant market expands beyond the confines of the U.S. Hence, the court talked about the *American* Division II teams, while excluding mention of Canadian teams.

If the Court of Appeals were comfortable with the rationale of the jurors who spoke, then it probably would have used that rationale. Instead, it chose a different rationale. That speaks volumes to the doubts about the "international market" argument.

 

[heyabbott]

Billy Hunter has never been one of the five smartest people in any room he's ever been in, ever. The players may never have the advantags but having Hunter is like surfing on bubble paper.

 

[Stitch]

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

This is patently false. The MLS argued that Division II soccer clubs (like those in the APSL) were market competitors with the Division I MLS.

The jury rejected the players' argument that the relevant market for professional soccer was only "Division I North American Soccer." The jury verdict didn't specify what it thought was the relevant market, only that it rejected the plaintiffs' argument.

The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's determination because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Division II teams competed with MLS. The First Circuit did NOT hold that there was sufficient evidence to support international market competition.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html

The jurors thought overseas leagues bolstered MLS's argument.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/mls/news/2000/12/11/mls_suit/

It still doesn't change the fact NBA players would be on welfare without professional basketball.

Jurors' out of court statement aren't dispositive here. What's more important is the First Circuit's opinion. There's a reason the First Circuit didn't mention the international market at all: There's serious doubt that under the Sherman Act you could argue that the relevant market expands beyond the confines of the U.S. Hence, the court talked about the *American* Division II teams, while excluding mention of Canadian teams.

If the Court of Appeals were comfortable with the rationale of the jurors who spoke, then it probably would have used that rationale. Instead, it chose a different rationale. That speaks volumes to the doubts about the "international market" argument.

I really don't care about the legalese. NBA players can go overseas, play in the ABA or head to the local welfare office. The owners know players don't have attractive options.

Why would the players still be negotiating if they really thought they could win?

 

[JC]

How about a negotiation with a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. Players can go overseas. MLS won its antitrust lawsuit based on that.

This is patently false. The MLS argued that Division II soccer clubs (like those in the APSL) were market competitors with the Division I MLS.

The jury rejected the players' argument that the relevant market for professional soccer was only "Division I North American Soccer." The jury verdict didn't specify what it thought was the relevant market, only that it rejected the plaintiffs' argument.

The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's determination because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Division II teams competed with MLS. The First Circuit did NOT hold that there was sufficient evidence to support international market competition.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html

The jurors thought overseas leagues bolstered MLS's argument.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/mls/news/2000/12/11/mls_suit/

It still doesn't change the fact NBA players would be on welfare without professional basketball.

What an intelligent argument you raise. Welfare?

 

[Versatile]

It still doesn't change the fact NBA players would be on welfare without professional basketball.

No, it really is.

 

[Azrael]

It still doesn't change the fact NBA players would be on welfare without professional basketball.

And driving Cadillacs that run on food stamps!

 

[Bulldog Smoltz]

We have a deal. AP reporting plans for teams to play 66-game season.