NBA files federal lawsuit against players

[ranger001]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba ... nion_n.htm

the NBA wants to "establish, among other things, that the NBA's lockout does not violate federal antitrust laws and that if the Players Association's 'decertification' were found to be lawful, all existing player contracts would become void and unenforceable."

[killbuckner]

Makes the Union's decision to delay decertifying look even worse. Instead of having the lawsuit decided in the 9th circuit they now have to have the battle in the second circuit.

I'll be curious to see what the suit says about voiding player contracts since I haven't seen a quote from a single lawyer who thinks its possible.

[ranger001]

If you read the article there is an image of the suit. Items 12 says all that all UPC's are the product of the collective bargaining process between the NBA and NBAPA and as a matter of federal labor law are void upon termination of the process.

[killbuckner]

Someone should have informed the NFL players that they were all unrestricted free agents once they decertified the union.

I'll just wait for one direct quote from soemone in law that has studied this that this has any merit whatsoever.

[ranger001]

Larry Coon tweet:-

"League is using Feerick decision from 1999 (which said players aren't entitled to pay for the time they were locked-out) to argue that some of the language in that decision says that player contracts are inextricable from the CBA"

[killbuckner]

Thats pretty ridiculous... John Feerick was the Dean of a lawschool acting as an arbitrator deciding whether the NBA players would still be paid during the lockout. Not only is it clear cut that the owners are allowed to lock the players out without pay (as long as there is a union) but there is no reason why anything he said would be at all binding on the current situation.

[DBoys]

If you read the article there is an image of the suit. Items 12 says all that all UPC's are the product of the collective bargaining process between the NBA and NBAPA and as a matter of federal labor law are void upon termination of the process.

Interesting.

[SO_MONEY]

The NBA's interpretation of the law seems spot on, this is not just to protect owners, but players as well. In an environment void of collective bargaining, as it would be if the union decertifies all contracts agreed to are null and void because free-markets didn't dictate the terms of the contracts and any employer who would try to enforce them could be found in violation of anti-trust law, as it was made in an attempt to artificially lower labor costs with concessions made in the form of non-statutory labor exceptions through the negotiation process. Of course both a player and a team could agree to the same terms, but it would need to be in a new contract.

The players want their cake and to eat it too, with possible decertification and the potential of anti-trust litigation, claiming anti-competitive practices, yet wanting retain the vestiges of salary obtained in a collective barging process which by definition would be anti-competitive if not reached in accordance with labor law.

[killbuckner]

SO_MONEY- so why do you think that when the NFL players decertified the union that their existing contracts were enforceable but for NBA players they shouldn't be? Do you think that all NFL players should ahve been made free agents as soon as the union decertified?

[SO_MONEY]

SO_MONEY- so why do you think that when the NFL players decertified the union that their existing contracts were enforceable but for NBA players they shouldn't be? Do you think that all NFL players should ahve been made free agents as soon as the union decertified?

NFL contracts were never enforceable, the courts intimated this, but both sides were urged to negotiate under mediation, however if the NFL were to have ever tried to conduct business and enforce a contract not cultivated under the precepts of free-markets, with no union presence they would have opened themselves up to litigation as some players would have been better off letting free-markets dictate their worth.

[killbuckner]

NFL contracts were never enforceable, the courts intimated this, but both sides were urged to negotiate under mediation, however if the NFL were to have ever tried to conduct business and enforce a contract not cultivated under the precepts of free-markets, with no union presence they would have opened themselves up to litigation as some players would have been better off letting free-markets dictate their worth.

What on earth are you even talking about? First of all I'd love for you to point out where you think that courts said that in this last dispute that existing contracts would be unenforceable. And second, you seem to be completely unaware that this isn't the first time that the NFL players decertified the union. The players went several years without a union and there was never a time that all players were made free agents or had their contracts nullified.

[DBoys]

The NBA's interpretation of the law seems spot on, this is not just to protect owners, but players as well. In an environment void of collective bargaining, as it would be if the union decertifies all contracts agreed to are null and void because free-markets didn't dictate the terms of the contracts and any employer who would try to enforce them could be found in violation of anti-trust law, as it was made in an attempt to artificially lower labor costs with concessions made in the form of non-statutory labor exceptions through the negotiation process. Of course both a player and a team could agree to the same terms, but it would need to be in a new contract.

The players want their cake and to eat it too, with possible decertification and the potential of anti-trust litigation, claiming anti-competitive practices, yet wanting retain the vestiges of salary obtained in a collective barging process which by definition would be anti-competitive if not reached in accordance with labor law.

This is the first explanation I've heard that is rational rather than advocatory, and that seems to fit both the current situation as it has played out plus the NBA history as past CBAs were written. The fact that each new CBA addressed prior contracts in a way that inferred they could have instead been completely altered squares concisely with this explanation. Thanks.

[killbuckner]

Dboys- do you think that NFL contracts also would have been null and void when the union decertified?

[SO_MONEY]

NFL contracts were never enforceable, the courts intimated this, but both sides were urged to negotiate under mediation, however if the NFL were to have ever tried to conduct business and enforce a contract not cultivated under the precepts of free-markets, with no union presence they would have opened themselves up to litigation as some players would have been better off letting free-markets dictate their worth.

What on earth are you even talking about? First of all I'd love for you to point out where you think that courts said that in this last dispute that existing contracts would be unenforceable. And second, you seem to be completely unaware that this isn't the first time that the NFL players decertified the union. The players went several years without a union and there was never a time that all players were made free agents or had their contracts nullified.

That is right, however either side "could" have made things difficult by bringing this to light, but as it served both sides at the time, neither wanted to, this is why I would assume the NBA is actively exploring a singular entity approach when they bring it to attention.

As for where the courts said the aforementioned it was in the statement neither side would like the ruling if one was made.

[DBoys]

Dboys- do you think that NFL contracts also would have been null and void when the union decertified?

To me, this is simply a "change the subject" question. The NFL has a completely different structure. Even though it's a sports league, none of the contracts are guaranteed, the union has a history of decertifying and reforming each time there's a deal to be negotiated, and other biggies as well.

If I want to get a good feel for where the NBA is headed, I'm more compelled by the thinking of the legal minds that have crafted past CBA's for the NBA, the precedent of a legally expert arbitrator's legal expertise and thinking, and that of the attorneys in the case at hand.

[killbuckner]

That is right, however either side "could" have made things difficult by bringing this to light, but as it served both sides neither wanted to, this is why I would assume the NBA is actively exploring a singular entity approach.

You don't think that the players would have preferred that every contract be nullified and everyoen be made a free agent? You are just delusional. Not only were the players contracts not dissolved after decertification, but the players weren't allowed free agency after decertification.

The NBA isn't anywhere close to the line of a single entity in light of the american needle case. If anyone is actually curious about the single entity aspect of sports law since the american needle case I did find this article interesting. http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/la ... 31-174.pdf

As for where the courts said the aforementioned it was in the statement neither side would like the ruling if one was made.

You completely misunderstood what the court was ruling on. The court was ONLY ruling on whether they were allowed to put in an injunction in light of the Norris-LaGuaria act. They said that neither side might like the ruling because they said that they were not allowed to grant an injuction against locking out players under contract, but that for newly drafted players or players without a contract that the district court judge would be allowed to grant an injunction

[killbuckner]

To me, this is simply a "change the subject" question. The NFL has a completely different structure. Even though it's a sports league, none of the contracts are guaranteed, the union has a history of decertifying and reforming each time there's a deal to be negotiated, and other biggies as well.

No- its a matter of pointing out that when the exact same situation occurred in other sports that the contracts were not null and void. That if you think that the owners should be allowed to nullify contracts when the union decertified then you should think that the players should get the same benefit since they are both equal parties in the collective bargaining process.

If I want to get a good feel for where the NBA is headed, I'm more compelled by the thinking of the legal minds that have crafted past CBA's for the NBA, the precedent of a legally expert arbitrator's legal expertise and thinking, and that of the attorneys in the case at hand.

I'm with you- thats why I have asked over and over for you guys to post ONE direct quote from a lawyer that believes that the NBA contracts might actually be declared null and void.

[DBoys]

Kill, you would do well to take your eye for detail and apply it to the American Needle case in the same way you apply it to the NFL injunction. In AN the ruling of the SCOTUS explicitly stated that their rejection of the single entity argument in that case ONLY applied to that specific marketing endeavor ...and in fact, they made clear they saw the applicability and legality of single entity actions in other NFL endeavors. Those who are seeing AN as a blanket rejection of single entity for sports leagues, in general, are hoodwinking themselves.

[killbuckner]

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.

[SO_MONEY]

That is right, however either side "could" have made things difficult by bringing this to light, but as it served both sides neither wanted to, this is why I would assume the NBA is actively exploring a singular entity approach.

You don't think that the players would have preferred that every contract be nullified and everyoen be made a free agent? You are just delusional. Not only were the players contracts not dissolved after decertification, but the players weren't allowed free agency after decertification.

The NBA isn't anywhere close to the line of a single entity in light of the american needle case. If anyone is actually curious about the single entity aspect of sports law since the american needle case I did find this article interesting. http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/la ... 31-174.pdf

As for where the courts said the aforementioned it was in the statement neither side would like the ruling if one was made.

You completely misunderstood what the court was ruling on. The court was ONLY ruling on whether they were allowed to put in an injunction in light of the Norris-LaGuaria act. They said that neither side might like the ruling because they said that they were not allowed to grant an injuction against locking out players under contract, but that for newly drafted players or players without a contract that the district court judge would be allowed to grant an injunction

1. Not exploring this option was beneficial to players because 1) the majority of the league is at the lower end of the spectrum and thus would stand to lose, and 2) is in accordance with stability as-well-as insert your own reason, there are plenty.

2. Extend the fact out where NFL contracts were not guaranteed and see the absence of a ruling in that regard, then see if it resolves and aligns with the law and the ruling is correct; as courts often only rule on the most limited of scopes needed.