NBA files federal lawsuit against players

[NOOOB]

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.

I'm not all that versed on the NFL, but the NBA's reference to Kessler's "permanent and irreversible" quote in their brief seemed to imply that the union recertified shortly after they resolved the CBA dispute in the early 90s. That, combined with the NBPA's purported history of threatening decertification during each CBA negotiation, would lead one to credibly conclude that they don't actually intend to do business outside of the non-statutory exemption going forward.

But you have a point. I hadn't really considered taking them at face value. If they were to actually go forward without being unionized, top flight players like Wade and Howard would certainly do well in the free market frenzy. On the other hand, middling players who benefit from guaranteed mid-level or veterans exception type contracts, which the union is fighting to keep, could be looking at far less lucrative and non-guaranteed contracts under your scenario. Even if a new CBA lowers or abolishes provisions like the mid-level exception, you'd have to think that it will still take better care of the majority of players than the free market would. I can't see the majority of middle-class players being comfortable going forward without union representation.

[DBoys]

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.

Or, not.

The notion that the NBA can commit anti-trust labor violations has been predicated on the concept that they are the only option for a basketball player to earn a living. But "only option" may not be true for the NBA and its players, and if there is no validity to an anti-trust claim, you owe NO damages.

The fact that NBA players have other options during the lockout tends to call *BS* on the idea that the NBA is an "only option" employer.

[killbuckner]

On the other hand, middling players who benefit from guaranteed mid-level or veterans exception type contracts, which the union is fighting to keep, could be looking at far less lucrative and non-guaranteed contracts under your scenario.

Thats completely ridiculous. There is no rule that MLE contracts have to be guaranteed. If every team was willing to use the MLE multiple times every offseason you think that salaries would go DOWN? If every team were able to offer as many max contracts as they wanted every offseason you think that salaries would go DOWN? The teams WANT to give these players those contracts despite the restrictions currently in place (Salary cap, luxury tax, limited exceptions). I have no idea where people get the idea that mid level plaeyrs would do WORSE if there were no salary cap. People act like the current CBA requires guaranteed deals which couldn't be any further from the truth. THe only players that are required to have guaranteed contracts are first round picks and the first year of a contract if a player signed an offersheet.

[NOOOB]

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.

They could? Is this based solely on the assumption that the league successfully reorganizes itself as a single-entity? If so, I don't see that as a credible possibility for reasons already discussed at length by others in this thread.

[killbuckner]

Without a union, all players not under contract are unrestricted free agents, with no salary cap, luxury tax, maximum salary or even a draft.

This isn't technically true. If the players were to decertify then the league could put in place whatever rules they wanted to- but the players would then be free to sue for an anti-trust violation. Its just that any money the owners saved through things like restricted free agency, a salary cap, luxury tax, max salary, or the draft would almost certainly be found to be anti-trust violations and then the players would collect TRIPLE damages. So in reality the owners would likely put in the bare minimum anti-competive rules since the stakes would be so huge if they were to lose in court. Triple damages add up awfully quickly.

And seriously... only in this thread do you find people who think that a salary cap would be upheld in court in absence of a union. That is pretty much the definition of an anti-trust violation.

[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.

They could? Is this based solely on the assumption that the league successfully reorganizes itself as a single-entity? If so, I don't see that as a credible possibility for reasons already discussed at length by others in this thread.

Per the Supreme Court, the issue is not "single entity." It's about anti-trust law and whether that is being violated in the situation at hand.

When it comes to the players, the NBA is not a monopoly - they have other choices in other leagues, each of which has its own pluses and minuses. The fact that the NBA does not have a monopoly on the basketball industry and its players would be a strong and perhaps compelling argument that their rules - whatever they make them to be - are merely one money-making option in a field of many for basketball players' services, and can unilaterally be rejected by any player by making a choice to play elsewhere.

[NOOOB]

On the other hand, middling players who benefit from guaranteed mid-level or veterans exception type contracts, which the union is fighting to keep, could be looking at far less lucrative and non-guaranteed contracts under your scenario.

Thats completely ridiculous. There is no rule that MLE contracts have to be guaranteed. If every team was willing to use the MLE multiple times every offseason you think that salaries would go DOWN? If every team were able to offer as many max contracts as they wanted every offseason you think that salaries would go DOWN? The teams WANT to give these players those contracts despite the restrictions currently in place (Salary cap, luxury tax, limited exceptions). I have no idea where people get the idea that mid level plaeyrs would do WORSE if there were no salary cap. People act like the current CBA requires guaranteed deals which couldn't be any further from the truth. THe only players that are required to have guaranteed contracts are first round picks and the first year of a contract if a player signed an offersheet.

Fair enough, I may have missed the boat there a bit. I suppose the Knicks and Lakers will always be willing to overpay for talent, regardless of the landscape. Well, 1st round rookie scale Ks would no longer be guaranteed, but they obviously aren't the ones dictating the NBPA's strategy.

[NOOOB]

Per the Supreme Court, the issue is not "single entity." It's about anti-trust law and whether that is being violated in the situation at hand.

When it comes to the players, the NBA is not a monopoly - they have other choices in other leagues, each of which has its own pluses and minuses. The fact that the NBA does not have a monopoly on the basketball industry and its players would be a strong and perhaps compelling argument that their rules - whatever they make them to be - are merely one money-making option in a field of many for basketball players' services, and can unilaterally be rejected by any player by making a choice to play elsewhere.[/quote][/quote]

But absent single entity status, wouldn't actions like setting a salary cap constitute collusion amongst market competitors?

Edit: Sorry, I'm still working on figuring out responding, etc. on realgm. This was an attempt to quote and respond to DBoys.

[DBoys]

Per the Supreme Court, the issue is not "single entity." It's about anti-trust law and whether that is being violated in the situation at hand.

When it comes to the players, the NBA is not a monopoly - they have other choices in other leagues, each of which has its own pluses and minuses. The fact that the NBA does not have a monopoly on the basketball industry and its players would be a strong and perhaps compelling argument that their rules - whatever they make them to be - are merely one money-making option in a field of many for basketball players' services, and can unilaterally be rejected by any player by making a choice to play elsewhere.

But absent single entity status, wouldn't actions like setting a salary cap constitute collusion amongst market competitors?

It depends on whether the NBA teams are expected to be "competitors" in a true sense of the word. The Supreme Court's ruling in AN seemed to indicate that they need not be.

If they had to compete, the goal of true business competitors is to bankrupt the competition and put him out of business. But there is no sense in which the Knicks' goal is to see the Sixers be financially ruined, or vice versa. Instead they are cooperative, not competitive. Therefore (as SC said) the standard is whether their actions in a certain area have violated anti-trust laws ...which basically deal with whether someone is left with no alternatives. With the option for players to play in Europe and elsewhere, it can be argued that today's NBA is merely one choice among many and therefore any cooperation between its teams is incapable of creating a labor monopoly in the sport.

Cooperation for a common purpose - including rules making sure each team has a shot at similarly valued talent each year so that the competition is on a level playing field - is not necessarily a violation of anti-trust law.

[killbuckner]

Well, 1st round rookie scale Ks would no longer be guaranteed, but they obviously aren't the ones dictating the NBPA's strategy.

Without a union the draft would also likely be considered an anti-trust violation so incoming players would be unrestricted free agents free to sign with the team of their choice. And once again for how easily teams are willing to spend 3 million dollars in order to acquire a first round pick you KNOW that the rookie scale is keeping salaries down, not artificially inflating them.

[killbuckner]

Dboys- I do think that if the NBA put in a luxury tax where the proceeds of the tax went to the players then that very well may be legal from an anti-trust standpoint. This would help level the playing field but it would not be screwing over the players to do so. From the standpoint of the courts, why should the players suffer for the NBA's goal of leveling the playing field?

I think the chances of a salary cap being considered legal is awfully close to zero and I seriously doubt you can find a single lawyer who thinks it would be upheld in absence of a union.

[ranger001]

If it came to the union decertifying for good the NBA would fold and reassemble in a year with another union rather than face the legal uncertainties.

A group of players would form a union for sure after a year of no paychecks.

[killbuckner]

If it came to the union decertifying for good the NBA would fold and reassemble in a year with another union rather than face the legal uncertainties.

A league could not force employees in a new league to form a union any more than the league can force the players now to form a union. Its up to the league to offer the players INCENTIVE to accept all the restrictions that they want to put in place. And once again that would normally come back to getting a guaranteed portion of the league income. Otherwise the players would simply just sue for an anti-trust violation once again.

And I think that you are nuts if you think that the owners who just bought the Golden State Warriors for 450 million dollars would be OK with throwing the money down the toilet.

[Sigra]

Cooperation for a common purpose - including rules making sure each team has a shot at similarly valued talent each year so that the competition is on a level playing field - is not necessarily a violation of anti-trust law.

Indeed. Plus, NBA can say "you players can sign whatever contract you can get". And then NBA make rules for their teams. For example hard cap. So basicly players have all rights in free market but teams must obey to NBA rules. I doubt players can sue against that.

[killbuckner]

I doubt players can sue against that.

Uhhhh... yes they could. And they would get triple damages for any money the league "saved" by putting that rule in place. The only reason the NBA can have a salary cap is because the union agreed to it. WIthout a union a salary cap would be illegal.

[parson]

Cooperation for a common purpose - including rules making sure each team has a shot at similarly valued talent each year so that the competition is on a level playing field - is not necessarily a violation of anti-trust law.

Indeed. Plus, NBA can say "you players can sign whatever contract you can get". And then NBA make rules for their teams. For example hard cap. So basicly players have all rights in free market but teams must obey to NBA rules. I doubt players can sue against that.

See "collusion."

[DBoys]

I doubt players can sue against that.

Uhhhh... yes they could. And they would get triple damages for any money the league "saved" by putting that rule in place. The only reason the NBA can have a salary cap is because the union agreed to it. WIthout a union a salary cap would be illegal.

Yes they could sue. Anyone can sue anyone at any time for anything.

But win? Ahhh, your certainty is very much over the top. They get money only for damages that are proven AND awarded ...and if they don't win, those mythical "triple damages" simply don't exist.

Your assumption that a league can't set a salary cap is predicated on the idea that there is no other league for the players to select to play in. However, that's not true any more. Not only do the players have alternatives these days, but they are hyping them daily. That means you have competition for services - which would appear to remove the "violation of anti-trust" angle. If there's no violation of the law (and there is no law that says, "Thou shalt not have a salary cap, a draft, etc"), there's no reward whatsoever from going to court.

[DBoys]

See "collusion."

?

[killbuckner]

Dboys- a salary cap in the NBA wouldn't be any more legal than all the big fast food restaurants in the US to band together to say that they aren't willing to pay more than the minimum wage and then telling the courts "Have them go to europe to work if they don't like our deal". A salary cap isn't anywhere CLOSE to the line of what would be legal in absence of a union. I know you don't see this but seriously- please find ONE lawyer who thinks that it would be legal for the NBA to keep a salary cap if the players were to dissolve the union. You can't do it because its a completely ridiculous statement. A salary cap is pretty much the textbook defintion of price fixing.

[ranger001]

If it came to the union decertifying for good the NBA would fold and reassemble in a year with another union rather than face the legal uncertainties.

A league could not force employees in a new league to form a union any more than the league can force the players now to form a union. Its up to the league to offer the players INCENTIVE to accept all the restrictions that they want to put in place. And once again that would normally come back to getting a guaranteed portion of the league income. Otherwise the players would simply just sue for an anti-trust violation once again.

And I think that you are nuts if you think that the owners who just bought the Golden State Warriors for 450 million dollars would be OK with throwing the money down the toilet.

Nobody will force them. Guaranteed though there will be players who are willing to go to a new league and form a union. GSW would not lose any money. The new league would have the same owners.