Players could be decertifying from the Players' Union

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflpa-decertification

The players could be withdrawing from the players union. Reports say this would prevent the owners from locking out the players next season. Apparently, the Saints players have already voted to de-certify.

Originally posted by Kilgore_Trout:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflpa-decertification

The players could be withdrawing from the players union. Reports say this would prevent the owners from locking out the players next season. Apparently, the Saints players have already voted to de-certify.

I don't get how it'd prevent a lock out? Wouldn't they still not play it'd just mean they could sue under anti trust laws or whatever?

Decertification helps prevent a lock out by allowing individual players to bring antitrust suits against the NFL and team owners.

The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over football in the US. Like all professional sports leagues (NBA/MLB etc), they get away with it. How?

Well, baseball has its own special law exempting it from antitrust laws (IIRC).

The other sports get around it through labor law. The team owners are represented by the league; the players unionize and are represented by their union reps. The league and the union negotiate and create collective bargaining agreements (the CBA). That CBA is the rulebook for how professional football teams and players will interact and carry out the business of being the NFL.

When management (NFL) and labor (NFL Player's Association) negotiate a CBA, there are no anti-trust issues. Player X, for example, cannot sue the NFL for being a monopoly because the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed upon terms in the CBA which limit what Player X can get from Team A and what Team A can do to Player X.

By way of imperfect analogy, imagine two landowners. If Landowner #1 built a shed that encroached over Landowner #2's property line, he would be trespassing. If Landowner #1 and Landowner #2 get together and talk, negotiate the dimensions of the shed and a price that will be paid for that land and how long that shed can stand there and any other terms, there's no longer any reason for Landowner #2 to sue Landowner #1 for trespass (nor could he).

Thus, the NFL is a monopoly but cannot be sued for being a monopoly by any player because the NFL and NFLPA have (or had) agreed to terms in the CBA.

If the NFLPA is dissolved and the CBA expires, the NFL would be left being the NFL and the NFLPA would simply be a ton of individual football players rather than a single union. Labor law would again take affect and permit football players to bring individual antitrust suits against the NFL. Each player would be "hurt" by the NFL being a monopoly because the NFL would have an illegal advantage in negotiating power (basically, all of it). Sufficient to say, the NFL would not want a s**tload of individual antitrust suits bring thrown its way.

Back to the landowner analogy, if the agreement between #1 and #2 expires, and #1's shed is still sitting on #2's land . . . then #2 is now free again to sue #1. That's very broadly what would happen.

I am not an agent or sports law expert, I am certainly not an antitrust lawyer. That's just vaguely what I remember from one semester of Sports law.

EDIT:
Changed to "IMperfect" analogy.

[ Edited by OptionZero on Sep 11, 2010 at 23:00:53 ]

Originally posted by OptionZero:
Decertification helps prevent a lock out by allowing individual players to bring antitrust suits against the NFL and team owners.

The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over football in the US. Like all professional sports leagues (NBA/MLB etc), they get away with it. How?

Well, baseball has its own special law exempting it from antitrust laws (IIRC).

The other sports get around it through labor law. The team owners are represented by the league; the players unionize and are represented by their union reps. The league and the union negotiate and create collective bargaining agreements (the CBA). That CBA is the rulebook for how professional football teams and players will interact and carry out the business of being the NFL.

When management (NFL) and labor (NFL Player's Association) negotiate a CBA, there are no anti-trust issues. Player X, for example, cannot sue the NFL for being a monopoly because the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed upon terms in the CBA which limit what Player X can get from Team A and what Team A can do to Player X.

By way of perfect analogy, imagine two landowners. If Landowner #1 built a shed that encroached over Landowner #2's property line, he would be trespassing. If Landowner #1 and Landowner #2 get together and talk, negotiate the dimensions of the shed and a price that will be paid for that land and how long that shed can stand there and any other terms, there's no longer any reason for Landowner #2 to sue Landowner #1 for trespass (nor could he).

Thus, the NFL is a monopoly but cannot be sued for being a monopoly by any player because the NFL and NFLPA have (or had) agreed to terms in the CBA.

If the NFLPA is dissolved and the CBA expires, the NFL would be left being the NFL and the NFLPA would simply be a ton of individual football players rather than a single union. Labor law would again take affect and permit football players to bring individual antitrust suits against the NFL. Each player would be "hurt" by the NFL being a monopoly because the NFL would have an illegal advantage in negotiating power (basically, all of it). Sufficient to say, the NFL would not want a s**tload of individual antitrust suits bring thrown its way.

Back to the landowner analogy, if the agreement between #1 and #2 expires, and #1's shed is still sitting on #2's land . . . then #2 is now free again to sue #1. That's very broadly what would happen.

I am not an agent or sports law expert, I am certainly not an antitrust lawyer. That's just vaguely what I remember from one semester of Sports law.

Thanks dude, that makes sense for the most part. So then the question is what happens if they don't come to an agreement in time? And who would be negotiating with the NFL if they decertify?

No idea. Heck, I don't even know what it would do to contracts just signed this offseason (P52/VD).

With no CBA, any team could pay or not pay any player anything they want.

Wanna throw $500M at an unrestricted free-agent? Go ahead.

Wanna release your whole roster? Go ahead.

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by OptionZero:
Decertification helps prevent a lock out by allowing individual players to bring antitrust suits against the NFL and team owners.

The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over football in the US. Like all professional sports leagues (NBA/MLB etc), they get away with it. How?

Well, baseball has its own special law exempting it from antitrust laws (IIRC).

The other sports get around it through labor law. The team owners are represented by the league; the players unionize and are represented by their union reps. The league and the union negotiate and create collective bargaining agreements (the CBA). That CBA is the rulebook for how professional football teams and players will interact and carry out the business of being the NFL.

When management (NFL) and labor (NFL Player's Association) negotiate a CBA, there are no anti-trust issues. Player X, for example, cannot sue the NFL for being a monopoly because the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed upon terms in the CBA which limit what Player X can get from Team A and what Team A can do to Player X.

By way of perfect analogy, imagine two landowners. If Landowner #1 built a shed that encroached over Landowner #2's property line, he would be trespassing. If Landowner #1 and Landowner #2 get together and talk, negotiate the dimensions of the shed and a price that will be paid for that land and how long that shed can stand there and any other terms, there's no longer any reason for Landowner #2 to sue Landowner #1 for trespass (nor could he).

Thus, the NFL is a monopoly but cannot be sued for being a monopoly by any player because the NFL and NFLPA have (or had) agreed to terms in the CBA.

If the NFLPA is dissolved and the CBA expires, the NFL would be left being the NFL and the NFLPA would simply be a ton of individual football players rather than a single union. Labor law would again take affect and permit football players to bring individual antitrust suits against the NFL. Each player would be "hurt" by the NFL being a monopoly because the NFL would have an illegal advantage in negotiating power (basically, all of it). Sufficient to say, the NFL would not want a s**tload of individual antitrust suits bring thrown its way.

Back to the landowner analogy, if the agreement between #1 and #2 expires, and #1's shed is still sitting on #2's land . . . then #2 is now free again to sue #1. That's very broadly what would happen.

I am not an agent or sports law expert, I am certainly not an antitrust lawyer. That's just vaguely what I remember from one semester of Sports law.

Thanks dude, that makes sense for the most part. So then the question is what happens if they don't come to an agreement in time? And who would be negotiating with the NFL if they decertify?

I'm not worried about a non-unionized Anti-Trust suit. Reason being is that it would then become "Class Actionable" and I think that the courts would not allow more than a handful of suits(rightfully so) against the NFL(or any other high profile entity) because while it would be against the judicial process, it would clog the Court's time and be detrimental to both sides, however long it went on.

And let's not forget the NFL is not above using Scabs to beat the Players. The only way the Players can hope to win this to their benefit here is to stay unionized and only those players that can afford their own experienced Council leave and then cluster Class Action sue the NFL. "Wide Receivers v. NFL" etc.

The one group that is going to get hurt in this process that has no recompense, are the Coaching Staffs. While they are under the Ownership Umbrella, they are left holding the bag. They can't work with their players and then IF it comes down to a lock out they have to go right back to the '82 league playbook and put together scab teams to keep the doors open.

Lets not forget the Concessions workers who have to order their product in advance to the season.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by OptionZero:
Decertification helps prevent a lock out by allowing individual players to bring antitrust suits against the NFL and team owners.

The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over football in the US. Like all professional sports leagues (NBA/MLB etc), they get away with it. How?

Well, baseball has its own special law exempting it from antitrust laws (IIRC).

The other sports get around it through labor law. The team owners are represented by the league; the players unionize and are represented by their union reps. The league and the union negotiate and create collective bargaining agreements (the CBA). That CBA is the rulebook for how professional football teams and players will interact and carry out the business of being the NFL.

When management (NFL) and labor (NFL Player's Association) negotiate a CBA, there are no anti-trust issues. Player X, for example, cannot sue the NFL for being a monopoly because the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed upon terms in the CBA which limit what Player X can get from Team A and what Team A can do to Player X.

By way of perfect analogy, imagine two landowners. If Landowner #1 built a shed that encroached over Landowner #2's property line, he would be trespassing. If Landowner #1 and Landowner #2 get together and talk, negotiate the dimensions of the shed and a price that will be paid for that land and how long that shed can stand there and any other terms, there's no longer any reason for Landowner #2 to sue Landowner #1 for trespass (nor could he).

Thus, the NFL is a monopoly but cannot be sued for being a monopoly by any player because the NFL and NFLPA have (or had) agreed to terms in the CBA.

If the NFLPA is dissolved and the CBA expires, the NFL would be left being the NFL and the NFLPA would simply be a ton of individual football players rather than a single union. Labor law would again take affect and permit football players to bring individual antitrust suits against the NFL. Each player would be "hurt" by the NFL being a monopoly because the NFL would have an illegal advantage in negotiating power (basically, all of it). Sufficient to say, the NFL would not want a s**tload of individual antitrust suits bring thrown its way.

Back to the landowner analogy, if the agreement between #1 and #2 expires, and #1's shed is still sitting on #2's land . . . then #2 is now free again to sue #1. That's very broadly what would happen.

I am not an agent or sports law expert, I am certainly not an antitrust lawyer. That's just vaguely what I remember from one semester of Sports law.

Thanks dude, that makes sense for the most part. So then the question is what happens if they don't come to an agreement in time? And who would be negotiating with the NFL if they decertify?

I'm not worried about a non-unionized Anti-Trust suit. Reason being is that it would then become "Class Actionable" and I think that the courts would not allow more than a handful of suits(rightfully so) against the NFL(or any other high profile entity) because while it would be against the judicial process, it would clog the Court's time and be detrimental to both sides, however long it went on.

And let's not forget the NFL is not above using Scabs to beat the Players. The only way the Players can hope to win this to their benefit here is to stay unionized and only those players that can afford their own experienced Council leave and then cluster Class Action sue the NFL. "Wide Receivers v. NFL" etc.

The one group that is going to get hurt in this process that has no recompense, are the Coaching Staffs. While they are under the Ownership Umbrella, they are left holding the bag. They can't work with their players and then IF it comes down to a lock out they have to go right back to the '82 league playbook and put together scab teams to keep the doors open.

Lets not forget the Concessions workers who have to order their product in advance to the season.

~Ceadder

Oh yeah, the whole res judicata/collateral estoppel/class action thing limits how scattered/numerous individual suits could even be.

Really, the easiest solution?

Hard limits on rookie deals w/ formal slotting (ala NBA first rounders).

Same cap rules.

Less money forced to be spent on rookies = more money available for veteran FA's. Also, top picks might actually get traded more.

Sort out the health insurance/retiree stuff.

Originally posted by OptionZero:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by OptionZero:
Decertification helps prevent a lock out by allowing individual players to bring antitrust suits against the NFL and team owners.

The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over football in the US. Like all professional sports leagues (NBA/MLB etc), they get away with it. How?

Well, baseball has its own special law exempting it from antitrust laws (IIRC).

The other sports get around it through labor law. The team owners are represented by the league; the players unionize and are represented by their union reps. The league and the union negotiate and create collective bargaining agreements (the CBA). That CBA is the rulebook for how professional football teams and players will interact and carry out the business of being the NFL.

When management (NFL) and labor (NFL Player's Association) negotiate a CBA, there are no anti-trust issues. Player X, for example, cannot sue the NFL for being a monopoly because the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed upon terms in the CBA which limit what Player X can get from Team A and what Team A can do to Player X.

By way of perfect analogy, imagine two landowners. If Landowner #1 built a shed that encroached over Landowner #2's property line, he would be trespassing. If Landowner #1 and Landowner #2 get together and talk, negotiate the dimensions of the shed and a price that will be paid for that land and how long that shed can stand there and any other terms, there's no longer any reason for Landowner #2 to sue Landowner #1 for trespass (nor could he).

Thus, the NFL is a monopoly but cannot be sued for being a monopoly by any player because the NFL and NFLPA have (or had) agreed to terms in the CBA.

If the NFLPA is dissolved and the CBA expires, the NFL would be left being the NFL and the NFLPA would simply be a ton of individual football players rather than a single union. Labor law would again take affect and permit football players to bring individual antitrust suits against the NFL. Each player would be "hurt" by the NFL being a monopoly because the NFL would have an illegal advantage in negotiating power (basically, all of it). Sufficient to say, the NFL would not want a s**tload of individual antitrust suits bring thrown its way.

Back to the landowner analogy, if the agreement between #1 and #2 expires, and #1's shed is still sitting on #2's land . . . then #2 is now free again to sue #1. That's very broadly what would happen.

I am not an agent or sports law expert, I am certainly not an antitrust lawyer. That's just vaguely what I remember from one semester of Sports law.

Thanks dude, that makes sense for the most part. So then the question is what happens if they don't come to an agreement in time? And who would be negotiating with the NFL if they decertify?

I'm not worried about a non-unionized Anti-Trust suit. Reason being is that it would then become "Class Actionable" and I think that the courts would not allow more than a handful of suits(rightfully so) against the NFL(or any other high profile entity) because while it would be against the judicial process, it would clog the Court's time and be detrimental to both sides, however long it went on.

And let's not forget the NFL is not above using Scabs to beat the Players. The only way the Players can hope to win this to their benefit here is to stay unionized and only those players that can afford their own experienced Council leave and then cluster Class Action sue the NFL. "Wide Receivers v. NFL" etc.

The one group that is going to get hurt in this process that has no recompense, are the Coaching Staffs. While they are under the Ownership Umbrella, they are left holding the bag. They can't work with their players and then IF it comes down to a lock out they have to go right back to the '82 league playbook and put together scab teams to keep the doors open.

Lets not forget the Concessions workers who have to order their product in advance to the season.

~Ceadder

Oh yeah, the whole res judicata/collateral estoppel/class action thing limits how scattered/numerous individual suits could even be.

Really, the easiest solution?

Hard limits on rookie deals w/ formal slotting (ala NBA first rounders).

Same cap rules.

Less money forced to be spent on rookies = more money available for veteran FA's. Also, top picks might actually get traded more.

Sort out the health insurance/retiree stuff.

I agree for most of your points. However I doubt that it would have much of an effect on top pick trading. Because while it would decrease the amount of money spent on the 1st overall and thru to 15th pick, I'm pretty certain that most owners and GMs' will not forsake their needs for hype.

Al Davis is not going to live forever. Even if he does look like the Krypt Keeper.

~Ceadder

i have no idea wtf any of this means

Originally posted by OptionZero:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by OptionZero:
Decertification helps prevent a lock out by allowing individual players to bring antitrust suits against the NFL and team owners.

The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over football in the US. Like all professional sports leagues (NBA/MLB etc), they get away with it. How?

Well, baseball has its own special law exempting it from antitrust laws (IIRC).

The other sports get around it through labor law. The team owners are represented by the league; the players unionize and are represented by their union reps. The league and the union negotiate and create collective bargaining agreements (the CBA). That CBA is the rulebook for how professional football teams and players will interact and carry out the business of being the NFL.

When management (NFL) and labor (NFL Player's Association) negotiate a CBA, there are no anti-trust issues. Player X, for example, cannot sue the NFL for being a monopoly because the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed upon terms in the CBA which limit what Player X can get from Team A and what Team A can do to Player X.

By way of perfect analogy, imagine two landowners. If Landowner #1 built a shed that encroached over Landowner #2's property line, he would be trespassing. If Landowner #1 and Landowner #2 get together and talk, negotiate the dimensions of the shed and a price that will be paid for that land and how long that shed can stand there and any other terms, there's no longer any reason for Landowner #2 to sue Landowner #1 for trespass (nor could he).

Thus, the NFL is a monopoly but cannot be sued for being a monopoly by any player because the NFL and NFLPA have (or had) agreed to terms in the CBA.

If the NFLPA is dissolved and the CBA expires, the NFL would be left being the NFL and the NFLPA would simply be a ton of individual football players rather than a single union. Labor law would again take affect and permit football players to bring individual antitrust suits against the NFL. Each player would be "hurt" by the NFL being a monopoly because the NFL would have an illegal advantage in negotiating power (basically, all of it). Sufficient to say, the NFL would not want a s**tload of individual antitrust suits bring thrown its way.

Back to the landowner analogy, if the agreement between #1 and #2 expires, and #1's shed is still sitting on #2's land . . . then #2 is now free again to sue #1. That's very broadly what would happen.

I am not an agent or sports law expert, I am certainly not an antitrust lawyer. That's just vaguely what I remember from one semester of Sports law.

Thanks dude, that makes sense for the most part. So then the question is what happens if they don't come to an agreement in time? And who would be negotiating with the NFL if they decertify?

I'm not worried about a non-unionized Anti-Trust suit. Reason being is that it would then become "Class Actionable" and I think that the courts would not allow more than a handful of suits(rightfully so) against the NFL(or any other high profile entity) because while it would be against the judicial process, it would clog the Court's time and be detrimental to both sides, however long it went on.

And let's not forget the NFL is not above using Scabs to beat the Players. The only way the Players can hope to win this to their benefit here is to stay unionized and only those players that can afford their own experienced Council leave and then cluster Class Action sue the NFL. "Wide Receivers v. NFL" etc.

The one group that is going to get hurt in this process that has no recompense, are the Coaching Staffs. While they are under the Ownership Umbrella, they are left holding the bag. They can't work with their players and then IF it comes down to a lock out they have to go right back to the '82 league playbook and put together scab teams to keep the doors open.

Lets not forget the Concessions workers who have to order their product in advance to the season.

~Ceadder

Oh yeah, the whole res judicata/collateral estoppel/class action thing limits how scattered/numerous individual suits could even be.

Really, the easiest solution?

Hard limits on rookie deals w/ formal slotting (ala NBA first rounders).

Same cap rules.

Less money forced to be spent on rookies = more money available for veteran FA's. Also, top picks might actually get traded more.

Sort out the health insurance/retiree stuff.

Sounds like we have another lawyer on the Zone. Welcome, dude!

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by OptionZero:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by OptionZero:
Decertification helps prevent a lock out by allowing individual players to bring antitrust suits against the NFL and team owners.

The NFL is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over football in the US. Like all professional sports leagues (NBA/MLB etc), they get away with it. How?

Well, baseball has its own special law exempting it from antitrust laws (IIRC).

The other sports get around it through labor law. The team owners are represented by the league; the players unionize and are represented by their union reps. The league and the union negotiate and create collective bargaining agreements (the CBA). That CBA is the rulebook for how professional football teams and players will interact and carry out the business of being the NFL.

When management (NFL) and labor (NFL Player's Association) negotiate a CBA, there are no anti-trust issues. Player X, for example, cannot sue the NFL for being a monopoly because the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed upon terms in the CBA which limit what Player X can get from Team A and what Team A can do to Player X.

By way of perfect analogy, imagine two landowners. If Landowner #1 built a shed that encroached over Landowner #2's property line, he would be trespassing. If Landowner #1 and Landowner #2 get together and talk, negotiate the dimensions of the shed and a price that will be paid for that land and how long that shed can stand there and any other terms, there's no longer any reason for Landowner #2 to sue Landowner #1 for trespass (nor could he).

Thus, the NFL is a monopoly but cannot be sued for being a monopoly by any player because the NFL and NFLPA have (or had) agreed to terms in the CBA.

If the NFLPA is dissolved and the CBA expires, the NFL would be left being the NFL and the NFLPA would simply be a ton of individual football players rather than a single union. Labor law would again take affect and permit football players to bring individual antitrust suits against the NFL. Each player would be "hurt" by the NFL being a monopoly because the NFL would have an illegal advantage in negotiating power (basically, all of it). Sufficient to say, the NFL would not want a s**tload of individual antitrust suits bring thrown its way.

Back to the landowner analogy, if the agreement between #1 and #2 expires, and #1's shed is still sitting on #2's land . . . then #2 is now free again to sue #1. That's very broadly what would happen.

I am not an agent or sports law expert, I am certainly not an antitrust lawyer. That's just vaguely what I remember from one semester of Sports law.

Thanks dude, that makes sense for the most part. So then the question is what happens if they don't come to an agreement in time? And who would be negotiating with the NFL if they decertify?

I'm not worried about a non-unionized Anti-Trust suit. Reason being is that it would then become "Class Actionable" and I think that the courts would not allow more than a handful of suits(rightfully so) against the NFL(or any other high profile entity) because while it would be against the judicial process, it would clog the Court's time and be detrimental to both sides, however long it went on.

And let's not forget the NFL is not above using Scabs to beat the Players. The only way the Players can hope to win this to their benefit here is to stay unionized and only those players that can afford their own experienced Council leave and then cluster Class Action sue the NFL. "Wide Receivers v. NFL" etc.

The one group that is going to get hurt in this process that has no recompense, are the Coaching Staffs. While they are under the Ownership Umbrella, they are left holding the bag. They can't work with their players and then IF it comes down to a lock out they have to go right back to the '82 league playbook and put together scab teams to keep the doors open.

Lets not forget the Concessions workers who have to order their product in advance to the season.

~Ceadder

Oh yeah, the whole res judicata/collateral estoppel/class action thing limits how scattered/numerous individual suits could even be.

Really, the easiest solution?

Hard limits on rookie deals w/ formal slotting (ala NBA first rounders).

Same cap rules.

Less money forced to be spent on rookies = more money available for veteran FA's. Also, top picks might actually get traded more.

Sort out the health insurance/retiree stuff.

Sounds like we have another lawyer on the Zone. Welcome, dude!

And he sounds like a pretty good guy too. Welcome to the site, OptionZero! I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts.

lol, we're going to see Replacement players playing for the Niners. That will be weird.

I hope some stars on the Niners cross the picket line

Come on Willis and Vernon, you already got paid. Play, f**k the union

[ Edited by crzy on Sep 12, 2010 at 08:55:27 ]

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:


Sounds like we have another lawyer on the Zone. Welcome, dude!

Thanks.

Like I said, not a Sports Law/Business law guy . . . I practice criminal law only. Just happened to remember stuff from law school and like reading about CBA/Transactional stuff across the NBA/NFL/MLB. I'll help when I can.

[ Edited by OptionZero on Sep 12, 2010 at 10:11:32 ]