NBA files federal lawsuit against players

[killbuckner]

This is from the article I just posted since I think the odds that you guys read it is pretty close to zero. http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/la ... 31-174.pdf

Generally, a players’ association can respond to a perceived injustice or concerted restraint on player movement by decertifying the union, which exposes separate economic employers to antitrust liability. Prior to filing an antitrust suit (McNeil v. NFL), the NFL Players Association was required to do just that: it decertified, disclaimed all interest as the representative of the players in collective bargaining, and reformed as a professional organization in order to take up the antitrust case against the league.

As a result, the players were able to prove that the nonstatutory labor exemption no longer applied; because the NFLPA was no longer the bargaining representative of the players, the previously agreed upon restraints were removed, and the NFL teams were subject to section 1 scrutiny. The NFL responded that it was a single-entity, incapable of conspiring under the Sherman Act, based on then NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue’s testimony about his belief that the NFL’s business relationship is that of co-owners, and not of independent economic competitors. The district court rejected this argument outright based on precedent in other circuits when the NFL raised similar claims.

The NFL players did sue- the courts never found that the existing player contracts were null and void. The fact of guaranteed vs non-guaranteed doesn't matter- the only contracts in the NBA that must be guaranteed are that of rookie scale contracts for first round picks. Otherwise every other team DECIDED to give those players a guaranteed contract.

[DBoys]

Dboys- you are the only person alive who saw the American Needle case as a victory for the NFL.

They did say that the league has the ability to work together to schedule games and things like that, but that they were unanimously in agreement that the NFL was not a single entity. It was a complete defeat for the NFL.

Kill, I didnt say AN was a victory for the NFL. They lost that specific battle (however, did they lose the war? or did some kneejerk and apply it broadly, when the SCOTUS did not?)

But turning your analysis into an attack at me isn't going to matter to the case itself. And when you do that, and when you don't analyze it as precisely as you do the injunction, I know that you know it was much more narrow in the wording than people have generally recognized. But you don't wanna say it. But you know ... we know ...it's okay, you can admit it, it didn't really reject "single entity" the way you wanted it to .....it left the door wide open in ways that would be incredibly problematic for the players in the future ....we know .....

[killbuckner]

I will absolutely admit that the actual ruling was narrow- I didn't realize thats what you were asking.

BUt the fact that it was UNANIMOUS is what makes it such a blow for the NFL owners. If it was a narrow ruling against single entity then its one thing- but the NFL needs 5 votes to swing and I just don't see that happening considering how much of a sword that would put over every players head. IF the NBA were granted single entity status then they could put in place a 20 million dollar salary cap, a 6 million dollar max salary, and dictate that no player be given a year over year raise and all the players could do would be sit out. The threat of decertification is a necessary one for players to get their market value.

[SO_MONEY]

This is from the article I just posted since I think the odds that you guys read it is pretty close to zero. http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/la ... 31-174.pdf

Generally, a players’ association can respond to a perceived injustice or concerted restraint on player movement by decertifying the union, which exposes separate economic employers to antitrust liability. Prior to filing an antitrust suit (McNeil v. NFL), the NFL Players Association was required to do just that: it decertified, disclaimed all interest as the representative of the players in collective bargaining, and reformed as a professional organization in order to take up the antitrust case against the league.

As a result, the players were able to prove that the nonstatutory labor exemption no longer applied; because the NFLPA was no longer the bargaining representative of the players, the previously agreed upon restraints were removed, and the NFL teams were subject to section 1 scrutiny. The NFL responded that it was a single-entity, incapable of conspiring under the Sherman Act, based on then NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue’s testimony about his belief that the NFL’s business relationship is that of co-owners, and not of independent economic competitors. The district court rejected this argument outright based on precedent in other circuits when the NFL raised similar claims.

The NFL players did sue- the courts never found that the existing player contracts were null and void. The fact of guaranteed vs non-guaranteed doesn't matter- the only contracts in the NBA that must be guaranteed are that of rookie scale contracts for first round picks. Otherwise every other team DECIDED to give those players a guaranteed contract.

Do you even know what a non-statutory labor exemption is?

Thanks for proving my case, because a contract negotiated within collective bargaining contains these exemptions one of them is capping salary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AND IF SALARY IS CAPPED IT CANNOT BE HONORED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ANTI-TRUST LAW.

[killbuckner]

Do you even know what a non-statutory labor exemption is?

Thanks for proving my case, because a contract negotiated within collective bargaining contains these exemptions one of them is capping salary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AND IF SALARY IS CAPPED IT CANNOT BE HONORED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ANTI-TRUST LAW.

huh? you are just talking jibberish again. The non-statutory labor exemption is what allows there to be a salary cap. And even though the CBA expired, the union decertified, the NFL players were STILL required to play under the terms of their old contracts. The courts never voided the contracts that were agreed to prior to the CBA expiring and the players weren't able to collect damages for contracts signed prior to the CBA expiring because of the non-statutory labor exemption. But the players were allowed to sue on the rules that the NFL decided to put in place because the courts wouldn't come anywhere close to calling the NFL a single entity.

[SO_MONEY]

Do you even know what a non-statutory labor exemption is?

Thanks for proving my case, because a contract negotiated within collective bargaining contains these exemptions one of them is capping salary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AND IF SALARY IS CAPPED IT CANNOT BE HONORED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ANTI-TRUST LAW.

huh? you are just talking jibberish again. The non-statutory labor exemption is what allows there to be a salary cap. And even though the CBA expired, the union decertified, the NFL players were STILL required to play under the terms of their old contracts. The courts never voided the contracts that were agreed to prior to the CBA expiring and the players weren't able to collect damages for contracts signed prior to the CBA expiring because of the non-statutory labor exemption. But the players were allowed to sue on the rules that the NFL decided to put in place because the courts wouldn't come anywhere close to calling the NFL a single entity.

Actually, a salary cap is or could be separate of a non-statutory labor exception or if nothing else a legal gray area as it would be meant to stabilize and aid parity in private business. MLS' answer is if memory serves is a team can pay one player anything on top of the salary cap.

A clear cut non-statutory labor exception is setting a max salary where which a player could prove damages or harm based on anti-competitive practices. A court ruled in MLS' case players could sign elsewhere if they found the conditions unfavorable meaning global markets come into play when determining a players worth, where either they would be paid more, less or equal to any other opportunity and still be able to legally conduct business.

[killbuckner]

SO_MONEY- if you were commissioner of the NBA and were wiling to impose a salary cap in absence of a union knowing that if you lost in court then you would have to pay triple damages then you are far more of a gambler than I am. To me the league arbitrarily setting a salary cap is pretty much the definition of anti-competive behavior.

A luxury tax would be possible not only because I think the courts would look on it more favorably but also because the damages if the NBA were to lose would be more manageable.

[SO_MONEY]

SO_MONEY- if you were commissioner of the NBA and were wiling to impose a salary cap in absence of a union knowing that if you lost in court then you would have to pay triple damages then you are far more of a gambler than I am. To me the league arbitrarily setting a salary cap is pretty much the definition of anti-competive behavior.

A luxury tax would be possible not only because I think the courts would look on it more favorably but also because the damages if the NBA were to lose would be more manageable.

The courts would have ruled and in essence did rule MLS could impose a salary cap in a single entity system to maintain competitive balance while preserving sustainability of the league, based upon global markets MLS was not viewed as causing harm as players could seek employment elsewhere. FACT!

[killbuckner]

The courts would have ruled and in essence did rule MLS could impose a salary cap in a single entity system to maintain competitive balance while preserving sustainability of the league, based upon global markets MLS was not viewed as causing harm as players could seek employment elsewhere. FACT!

What does that have to do with the NBA? The MLS assigned players to teams and didn't let their teams sign their own players.

If you are really spending all this time saying "if the league got rid of the owners then the players would have a tough time suing for an anti-trust violation!" then I guess its true but it doesn't have anything to do with the current labor dispute.

[SO_MONEY]

The courts would have ruled and in essence did rule MLS could impose a salary cap in a single entity system to maintain competitive balance while preserving sustainability of the league, based upon global markets MLS was not viewed as causing harm as players could seek employment elsewhere. FACT!

What does that have to do with the NBA? The MLS assigned players to teams and didn't let their teams sign their own players.

If you are really spending all this time saying "if the league got rid of the owners then the players lawsuit might fail!" then I guess its true but it doesn't have anything to do with the current labor dispute.

God, you don't read:

Ownership

MLS operates under a single-entity structure in which teams are centrally controlled and owned by the league.[7] Each team has an owner-operator and the team owners are shareholders in the league. In order to keep costs under control, revenues are shared throughout the league, player contracts are negotiated by the league, and ultimately players are contracted not with individual teams but with the league itself. The league fought a bitter legal battle with its players over its economic system, but this was eventually resolved with the players gaining some improved benefits in return for accepting the single entity structure. A court had also ruled that even absent their collective bargaining agreement, players could opt to play in other leagues if they were unsatisfied.

The league's cost-controlling measures have attracted new ownership that have injected more money into the league, improving it and focusing the league's resources on fewer clubs. Examples include the Anschutz Entertainment Group's sale of the MetroStars to Red Bull, for an "excess of $100 million," according to the New York Times. Commissioner Garber said to the Los Angeles Times that, "the sale was part of a plan to have AEG decrease its holdings in MLS. We're pushing Hunt Sports to do the same thing."

Commissioner Garber has stated that having multiple clubs owned by a single owner was a necessity in the first 10 years of MLS, but now that the league appears to be on the brink of overall profitability and has significant expansion plans, he wants each club to have a distinct owner. In order to help bring this about, the league is now giving more incentive to be an individual club owner, with all owners now having the rights to a certain number of players they develop through their club's academy system each year, sharing the profits of Soccer United Marketing, and being able to sell individual club jersey sponsorships.

At one time AEG owned six clubs in MLS, and have since sold the Colorado Rapids, the MetroStars, D.C. United and the Chicago Fire to new owners. AEG's remaining teams are the Los Angeles Galaxy and the Houston Dynamo.[8] The other major owner-investor in MLS has been Hunt Sports, which owns the Columbus Crew and FC Dallas, having sold the Kansas City Wizards to a local ownership group in 2006. The league now has 17 owners for its 19 clubs (including the Vancouver and Portland teams entering in 2011 and the Montreal team that is confirmed to be entering in 2012).

Owners are not eliminated.

Also, the teams...or the NBA could:

With the willingness and perhaps even drive to invalidate contracts the mandate would point towards a singular entity where which the NBA as the owner of contracts could disperse talent/contracts as they saw fit. This could point in several directions:

1) Total overhaual

2) Partical overhaul (to fit salary restrictions)

3) Status quo

Because ownership groups are present and as this ownership would be converted into shares in the NBA each owner could then litigate under anti-trust law, this would promote competitive balance through the draft and free-agency. At worst the NBA would allow an undefined amount of players to be retained and at best maintain the status quo.

Teams with salaries over the NBA determined salary cap [separate from max salaries and thus legal] could then possibly forfeit a players rights or be grandfathered in at the behest of the league.

I highly doubt there is a mass exodus as safeguards would be in place to protect against it, with the exception of contraction and a supplemental draft to possibly find discarded players homes.

PRETTY SIMPLE.

[killbuckner]

LOL. You can spend your time talking about the league blowing it up and starting over where the individual teams have no decisionmaking power. I prefer to talk about scenarios that might actually happen.

[DBoys]

LOL. You can spend your time talking about the league blowing it up and starting over where the individual teams have no decisionmaking power. I prefer to talk about scenarios that might actually happen.

Who knows?

I do know two things ...
1 The owners claim they are losing big money with the current system
2 The players response has been to ignore that claim and insist on something very close to the status quo

If #1 is indeed the case, and #2 doesn't change, then the idea of the owners changing the nature of the league might not be as far-fetched as we would otherwise think. There's no way they'd continue a system that requires them to take it in the shorts every year - they'll keep sitting rather than go there, I suspect - but they'd probably want to restart offering some profitable entertainment venture rather than sit forever. The options offered here (or something in that vein) could be a broad direction of their back door if needed.

[NOOOB]

Total system overhaul aside, the logic of the NBA’s argument is pretty sound:

1. History shows that the threat to decertify is, without question, a sham to exert leverage in negotiations. (does anyone doubt that this is true?)

2. In prior NFL litigation, in an attempt to show that decertification was not a sham, the NBA’s current attorney swore that decertification was intended to be “permanent and irreversible.” Then they turned around and resurrected the union when the labor dispute was resolved. (referenced in Paragraph 40 of the NBA's brief).

So the NBA gives the court two options. A) Agree that the threat to decertify is a sham and enjoin the NBPA from decertifying, as doing so would be a bad faith negotiating tactic, constituting a ULP. Or, b) if it is not a sham and the union truly intends to permanently and irreversibly decertify, then the labor-management relationship is over. Hence, the UPCs, which can only legally exist in the context of the labor-management relationship, are void as contrary to Anti-trust law. Contracts are routinely found void when deemed contrary to law.

Here's the money quote: "Accordingly, in the event the NBPA's disclaimer were found not to be invalid, and the collective bargaining relationship between the parties were not otherwise to continue, the UPC's - which were the product of that collective bargaining relationship and are dependent on the continuation of that relationship - would be void and unenforceable as a matter of law."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61454587/NBA- ... ainst-NBPA

Hard to argue with the logic. But as someone who’s generally sympathetic to the players’ side, I say they amend their pending ULP claim to allege that management’s threat to void contracts is a tactic done in bad-faith, to force them to stay at the negotiating table and accept the league’s unfavorable terms. “Your ULP claim is a ULP” in essence.

[DBoys]

The courts would have ruled and in essence did rule MLS could impose a salary cap in a single entity system to maintain competitive balance while preserving sustainability of the league, based upon global markets MLS was not viewed as causing harm as players could seek employment elsewhere. FACT!

I have seen this argument advanced as regarding the NBA and its right to impose its own rules. It makes a lot of sense.

The fact that there are other leagues offering alternate employment opportunities to the players could mean that there is nothing to prevent the NBA from having specific work rules including a cap, draft, and/or a wage scale of some sort that are uniform to all its competing teams. Under that reasoning, there is nothing violating anti-trust laws in such actions, since if you don't like the NBA setup and what it offers, you can always choose to work in a different basketball league. The competition would be with other leagues and their brand of basketball/entertainment, rather than internally to the NBA.

[Courtside]

I have seen this argument advanced as regarding the NBA and its right to impose its own rules. It makes a lot of sense.

The fact that there are other leagues offering alternate employment opportunities to the players could mean that there is nothing to prevent the NBA from having specific work rules including a cap, draft, and/or a wage scale of some sort that are uniform to all its competing teams. Under that reasoning, there is nothing violating anti-trust laws in such actions, since if you don't like the NBA setup and what it offers, you can always choose to work in a different basketball league. The competition would be with other leagues and their brand of basketball/entertainment, rather than internally to the NBA.

...and the players actually signing contracts overseas are providing the supporting evidence.

[DBoys]

I have seen this argument advanced as regarding the NBA and its right to impose its own rules. It makes a lot of sense.

The fact that there are other leagues offering alternate employment opportunities to the players could mean that there is nothing to prevent the NBA from having specific work rules including a cap, draft, and/or a wage scale of some sort that are uniform to all its competing teams. Under that reasoning, there is nothing violating anti-trust laws in such actions, since if you don't like the NBA setup and what it offers, you can always choose to work in a different basketball league. The competition would be with other leagues and their brand of basketball/entertainment, rather than internally to the NBA.

...and the players actually signing contracts overseas are providing the supporting evidence.

Interesting point. Wouldn't it be ironic if they were simply posturing about signing overseas, yet it came back to bite them in the butt later on?

[killbuckner]

1. History shows that the threat to decertify is, without question, a sham to exert leverage in negotiations. (does anyone doubt that this is true?)

The NFL went years without a union- the only reason they recertified is because the NFL owners needed them to in order to have a salary cap.

And I think that the NBA players are likely in a position where they are better off without a union on a permanent basis. When the NBA owners are asking for concession after concession and I just don't see why they should agree to them. The Salary cap, luxury tax, Draft, Maximum Salary, and Maximum contract length would all almost certainly be illegal without a union. For the players to accept these restrictions I think the owners would have to offer them other things they want. (A guaranteed percentage of BRI) Otherwise I think the players should decertify and simply take the highest offer that a team is willing to give them. They would be nuts to lock themselves into a lousy CBA like the owners are trying to force on them.

[DBoys]

The Salary cap, luxury tax, Draft, Maximum Salary, and Maximum contract length would all almost certainly be illegal without a union.

Or, not.

Absent a union, the NBA could unilaterally (and legally) set whatever uniform rules they needed for equality of competition (including Salary cap, luxury tax, Draft, Maximum Salary, and Maximum contract length) if the courts decided that the players have alternative and competitive options for their employment if they don't like what the NBA offers.

[killbuckner]

Or, not.

Absent a union, the NBA could unilaterally (and legally) set whatever uniform rules they needed for equality of competition (including Salary cap, luxury tax, Draft, Maximum Salary, and Maximum contract length) if the courts decided that the players have alternative and competitive options for their employment if they don't like what the NBA offers.

The NBA absolutely could put whatever rules they wanted to. The players would then sue for an anti-trust violation and would collect triple damages once it went to court. You can believe that those literally anti-competitive things would be upheld in court if you like, but I don't think the owners would be dumb enough to risk triple damages on rules that are pretty much the definition of an anti-trust violation.

[giberish]

Without a union, all players not under contract are unrestricted free agents, with no salary cap, luxury tax, maximum salary or even a draft. The reason why players unions always recertify is that leagues insist on it as a condition of whatever agreement that is reached. Running a league without a collective bargining agreement and a players union opens up an antitrust suit that could really bankrupt owners.

The issue is that decertification will certainly lead to extended lawsuits before anything else happens costing both sides time and money.