Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[Joker]

Hi thread!!!...hey, I'd like you to meet something....

 

[Deus Irae]

First of all, I am not guessing. I actually understand antitrust law better than the average person although no expert. I did take business law in my MBA which covered antitrust. With or without the exemption, the NFL is clearly not a monopoly in a legal sense. To be a monopoly in a legal sense and violate the antitrust laws, there needs to be an overt act to squash competion. Again, that is why Microsoft has never lost an antitrust case based solely on their domination of the operating system market.

It is clear that the NFL doesn't squash competion. They allow other leagues to cut deals with the same networks they broadcast on. They have cut deals with the UFL to compensate them for players they might sign from their league.

If the NFL were acting as monopolies in this way, don't you think some of the billionaires who have owned or still own teams that rivaled the NFL might have sued the NFL by now. Off the top of my head, I can think of three billionaires associated with leagues that competed or still are competing with the NFL - Ted Turner (USFL), Vince MacMahon (XFL), and Mark Cuban (UFL). None have sued or look to plan to sue.

Sorry, but just dominating the market and having you next largest competitor be a fraction of what you are does not make you a monopoly in the legal sense. The NFL cannot be penalized for being first and the best at it.

As it relates to the player's compensation, as long as they don't block players not under contract from signing with the UFL or the CFL or another league, they are doing nothing wrong even if these leagues can't pay the guys for an entire season what they make by the end of the first quarter of a game in the NFL. The NFL isn't required to make sure the players have other options that compensate them as much as the NFL.

You are guessing. There's nothing wrong with an educated guess, and I wasn't trying to call you out, but an educated guess is all you've got. It's notable that the USFL jury came down in opposition to your position.

 

[Rob0729]

No. Nor could they stop him if Saturday Night Live offered him a spot in next season's cast. That's all well and good.

But they are acting in concert when it comes to his ability to ply his trade with any of the 32 competing businesses that supposedly comprise the NFL.

Well, that is part of the CBA which was agreed to by the players. So the players are complicite in this "monopoly". So are the players evil because they are acting as a monopoly to stop them from making as much money somewhere else doing the same thing?

Even so, you are wrong. All you have to do is look at the USFL. When that league popped up, many of the top draft picks of that era signed with the USFL because they were paying more than the NFL including Steve Young, Herschel Walker, Reggie White, and Jim Kelly. If a league of billionaires decides to start up a league again, they could sign the top draft picks and free agents away from the NFL and the NFL could do nothing but try to out bid for the players' services.

The only thing stopping any NFL free agent or draft prospect from signing with a team in another league is owners in other leagues don't want to spend the money or can't spend the money. It has nothing to do with the NFL except that they have been around for more than 75 years and have the fan loyalty and no one wants to spend the money to compete after they watched the USFL fail because the costs to compete were too much while they were growing an audience. But again, that isn't the NFL's fault especially when the players pushed for 60% of the revenue to go to the players.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong about the NFL acting as a monopoly against the USFL, but that was that they were stopping the networks from broadcasting games, not stopping players from signing with the league.

 

[Rob0729]

You are guessing, and your words concede it.





There's nothing wrong with an educated guess, and I wasn't trying to call you out, but an educated guess is all you've got. It's notable that the USFL jury came down in opposition to your position.

Not guessing. When I say "it isn't neccessary true" I mean that that it could be true if you factor in other reason, but on that reason alone it doesn't make it true. I know it isn't true, but I chose that phrase specifically and it wasn't a guess. You inferred a meaning that wasn't there.

As for the other phrase, I can't remember where I used it so I cannot comment.

As for the USFL, I may wrong there. That was a little before my time. If I am wrong there, I apologize. In subsequent leagues though, there hasn't even been allegations of antitrust.

But checking that case, it had nothing to do with allowing players to go to the USFL. That had to do with broadcasting the games and access to certain stadiums in certain areas. The USFL never alleged that the NFL blocked players from signing with the USFL in any way. So yes, they lost an antitrust case vs. the USFL but for different reasons than the ones being argued. So yes, they acted as a monopoly in that case, but not for any of the reasons argued by lamafist.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

So you believe Judges should force people to stay in unions they don't wish to be in?

No, what I said was that Judge Nelson lied about believing that the union has disbanded. The players want the union, need the union. I hope thatt the owners honor all contracts and lower the salary structure of the NFL to that of US Steel. That they make the players pay for dependant health insurance and that they make the players pay for their meals, ride coach and get a feel of what it is like to be just a guy.

The owners own the team, the players are employees and because of some antiquated laws football will be ruined and turned into baseball. I stoped watching baseball because I got sick of players b!tching and moaning about everything. If the players wanted to decertify, or not, they are now and the owners should tale full advantage of that fact.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not guessing. When I say "it isn't neccessary true" I mean that that it could be true if you factor in other reason, but on that reason alone it doesn't make it true. I know it isn't true, but I chose that phrase specifically and it wasn't a guess. You inferred a meaning that wasn't there.

As for the other phrase, I can't remember where I used it so I cannot comment.

As for the USFL, I may wrong there. That was a little before my time. If I am wrong there, I apologize. In subsequent leagues though, there hasn't even been allegations of antitrust.

But checking that case, it had nothing to do with allowing players to go to the USFL. That had to do with broadcasting the games and access to certain stadiums in certain areas. The USFL never alleged that the NFL blocked players from signing with the USFL in any way. So yes, they lost an antitrust case vs. the USFL but for different reasons than the ones being argued. So yes, they acted as a monopoly in that case, but not for any of the reasons argued by lamafist.

The jury in the USFL case found that the NFL was a monopoly, but it didn't find for the bad acts portion. It's why the USFL ended up winning $3.

Look, as I said, I wasn't calling you out. You're guessing. It's an educated guess. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's how the law works when you don't have firm and binding precedent (Hell, it's often just an educated guess even when you do have firm and binding precedent).

There's nothing for either of us to apologize for here. Let's just put this in the rear view mirror, ok?

 

[Ring 6]

This a real good point. She does a nice job on this point in the opinion, and I should have mentioned it. She actually made the point far better than the players' counsel made the arguments in their briefs.

But that's right -- she would defend her opinion as not overly formalistic, because the decertification had real consequences.

Are there really consequences of decertification that can't be eliminated by recertifying?
That is the 'sham' argument, that they have every intention of recertifying and only decertified to gain a legal advantage they would not have as a collective entity.

 

[Joker]

Hi, NFL fans and players!!!! It's ME, Judge Dredd!!! I'm the one who rules on the future of the league and sport that YOU play in and follow avidly...all ONE HUNDRED PER CENT MALE employees and over NINETY PER CENT male fanbase!!! While my live-in girlfriend and I are extremely busy making sure our attendance is 100% at all N.O.W. conferences and our spare time is devoted to whale watching off Nantucket and tea with scones on the terrace, you can trust ME to understand how all you near troglydytes feel about this entire foozball issue...hope to see you next year!!!

 

[patchick]

Can one of you anti-trust experts explain to me why the heck anti-trust law hasn't been changed to explicitly address the nature of sports leagues? It seems obvious that "competing businesses" which have been created together, by mutual agreement, specifically for the purpose of competing with one another with their product being that competition itself packaged as entertainment, are simply a unique category of enterprise.

 

[Patspsycho]

Can one of you anti-trust experts explain to me why the heck anti-trust law hasn't been changed to explicitly address the nature of sports leagues? It seems obvious that "competing businesses" which have been created together, by mutual agreement, specifically for the purpose of competing with one another with their product being that competition itself packaged as entertainment, are simply a unique category of enterprise.

First, you'd have to explain why it should be? In what way should anti-trust laws treat it any differently than other business enterprise?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I am capable of multitasking. I can actually use more than one computer at a time, as well.

Now, are you done with the personal attacks?

they're all he has, Deus. he can't stop them.

 

[Rob0729]

The jury in the USFL case found that the NFL was a monopoly, but it didn't find for the bad acts portion. It's why the USFL ended up winning $3.

Look, as I said, I wasn't calling you out. You're guessing. It's an educated guess. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's how the law works when you don't have firm and binding precedent (Hell, it's often just an educated guess even when you do have firm and binding precedent).

There's nothing for either of us to apologize for here. Let's just put this in the rear view mirror, ok?

Again, they acted like a monopoly, BUT NOT IN THE WAY WE ARE DISCUSSING. They never impeded the players from seeking employment in the USFL which is what lamafist is allegedging they are doing. Microsoft lost an antitrust case dealing with peripheral being bundled with their operating system, but never with their domination of the operating system market. That doesn't mean they were a monopoly in the operating system market.

Hey, if I am guessing, you are guessing too. Stop being so friggin condescending or produce your **** JD in antitrust law. This is why I can't stand you. You think you are intellectually superior to everyone. When in fact you are just a condescending ****. But hey, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Rob0729]

Can one of you anti-trust experts explain to me why the heck anti-trust law hasn't been changed to explicitly address the nature of sports leagues? It seems obvious that "competing businesses" which have been created together, by mutual agreement, specifically for the purpose of competing with one another with their product being that competition itself packaged as entertainment, are simply a unique category of enterprise.

MLB was grandfathered when the antitrust laws were introduced over 100 years ago. In later years, Congress gave other sports most of the exemptions because they didn't want a challenge in court to get rid of the ones for MLB. Some of the exemptions that the NFL get are afforded to other industries outside of entertainment such as collective bargaining. There are a lot of industries that have antitrust exemptions. It isn't unique to sports, but it is the most known.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob -- I'm reasonably certain that the NFL's statutory anti-trust examption only gives them protection with respect to cartel activities in dealing with the networks. In other words, they don't need to bargain collectively with the nets.

It's not a broad exemption -- in fact, they didn't even try to argue it applied in the American Needle case. And, more fundamentally, it doesn't allow them to act collectively viz. labor absent a CBA.

The most valuable antitrust exemption to the NFL is the broadcasting one, but it isn't the only one besides the CBA. Antitrust exemptions in sports date back to Tedy Roosevelt long before the television even existed (in fact before mass consumer radio use too).

The NFL has many exemptions (some significant and some minor), but the one that would affect their whole business structure the most is the one afforded to them in the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. That is one which let them act collectively to negotiate television deals and have blackouts in local areas. They lose that and they lose billions, but antitrust exemptions for the NFL were in place long before 1961. This is why Senators like Arlen Spector go after this anti-trust exemption over every other one. Because it would hurt the NFL most if they lost it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Hi, NFL fans and players!!!! It's ME, Judge Dredd!!! I'm the one who rules on the future of the league and sport that YOU play in and follow avidly...all ONE HUNDRED PER CENT MALE employees and over NINETY PER CENT male fanbase!!! While my live-in girlfriend and I are extremely busy making sure our attendance is 100% at all N.O.W. conferences and our spare time is devoted to whale watching off Nantucket and tea with scones on the terrace, you can trust ME to understand how all you near troglydytes feel about this entire foozball issue...hope to see you next year!!!

Just to get this straight.

Is the judge disqualified from ruling in this case because of her gender or her alleged sexual orientation? Or both? You leave that ambiguous.

How, indeed, do "near troglydytes" feel about the sport we are discussing? (I understand that real troglodytes have trouble spelling.)

Is the "hope to see you next year" a real or implied threat or just a bad joke? I suspect you meant it as a joke, but there are some who might see it otherwise.

Do you have the vaguest notion how bad an idea it is to post a picture of a judge, with personal attacks, borderline threats and details of her personal life (true or false), in a heated thread about a decision she has recently made?

If you can't argue on the facts, you have lost the argument.

 

[Triumph]

Who knew??????????

Traffic court?

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Just to get this straight.

Is the judge disqualified from ruling in this case because of her gender or her alleged sexual orientation? Or both? You leave that ambiguous.

How, indeed, do "near troglydytes" feel about the sport we are discussing? (I understand that real troglodytes have trouble spelling.)

Is the "hope to see you next year" a real or implied threat or just a bad joke? I suspect you meant it as a joke, but there are some who might see it otherwise.

Do you have the vaguest notion how bad an idea it is to post a picture of a judge, with personal attacks, borderline threats and details of her personal life (true or false), in a heated thread about a decision she has recently made?

If you can't argue on the facts, you have lost the argument.

Go put on your pink bathrobe, run a bubble bath, pour yourself a nice glass of red whine, and calm down.

Myself, I thought it was pretty funny. There are real things to worry about here, like finding a OLB inthe draft that can actually rush the passer. Why worry about a post on a fansite?

I am more worried about your reaction than I am about the original post, unless of course you are her girlfriend. If that is the case, forget everything I just wrote, except the part about the bathrobe, and bubble and glass of whine.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Hi, NFL fans and players!!!! It's ME, Judge Dredd!!! I'm the one who rules on the future of the league and sport that YOU play in and follow avidly...all ONE HUNDRED PER CENT MALE employees and over NINETY PER CENT male fanbase!!! While my live-in girlfriend and I are extremely busy making sure our attendance is 100% at all N.O.W. conferences and our spare time is devoted to whale watching off Nantucket and tea with scones on the terrace, you can trust ME to understand how all you near troglydytes feel about this entire foozball issue...hope to see you next year!!!

I'm a glass is half full person. Belichick has several properties on Nantucket. Maybe he can work his magic here and get Her Honor to broker a settlement deal. Maybe even add her to his 'stable'?

Tracked Down: Bill Belichick, Suzy Welch, Erin Andrews & more... - BostonHerald.com

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Go put on your pink bathrobe, run a bubble bath, pour yourself a nice glass of red whine, and calm down.

Myself, I thought it was pretty funny. There are real things to worry about here, like finding a OLB inthe draft that can actually rush the passer. Why worry about a post on a fansite?

I am more worried about your reaction than I am about the original post, unless of course you are her girlfriend. If that is the case, forget everything I just wrote, except the part about the bathrobe, and bubble and glass of whine.

Ah, the intelligentsia checks in!

 

[Ring 6]

Ah, the intelligentsia checks in!

Is there a big difference between someone insulting the judge for her ruling, and you insulting posters intelligence for their opinions?