NFLPA* basically lies in their recent filing...

[DaBruinz]

Players call NFL a 'cartel' in court filing - NFL - Sporting News

"The players face immediate, continuing, severe irreparable injury from unlawful conduct orchestrated to force them to re-unionize against their will and make immense financial concessions," the players' attorneys wrote. "The NFL, by contrast, claims only a temporary loss of leverage by members of a cartel that is no longer entitled to any exemption from the antitrust laws."

Hmm.. The players want a CBA without unionizing?? That would be a first. What "irreparable harm" are they suffering currently? This is a time where they are not paid a normal paycheck. The only payment they receive is any stipend from any OTA they might attend. And, during this time, they are responsible for their own work-outs. Did those workouts change all of a sudden from the end of last season??? I think not. The only ones who are minimally affected are the rookies. Not ALL the players.

The players have argued all along that their careers are being harmed by the work stoppage — they can't work out, or sign contracts with any of the 32 clubs while the lockout persists.

While they can't sign contracts, they most certainly CAN workout. In fact, we read every day how many of them ARE working out. So, again, how are they being harmed? Because a select few of the contractors are unemployed?? I have news for them, there are some 30 million people in the US who are unemployed right now. Deal with it.

As for the players basically demanding that their Anti-trust lawsuit move forward before the Appeals court has ruled on the League Appeal over the lockout, I'm sorry, but no, it shouldn't. Their Anti-trust lawsuits are inextricably tied to the Lock-out. They are only valid if the Appeals Court rules in their favor. Otherwise, they are not valid because they were filed PRIOR to the end of the CBA which, in and of itself is a violation of the CBA.

Every day that goes by, it's patently clear that the Players continue to act as a UNION and not as a trade association. And every day that passes, it becomes more and more clear that too many of the players are out of touch with reality.

And, yes, I agree with other people who have said that the AGENTS are more of a driving force behind this than the players and that the lawyers are actually the worst of the bunch.

It didn't have to get to this point, but it's clear that the players haven't bargained in good faith.

Oh, and that isn't to say that the owners have kept their noses clean. They haven't. The garbage they pulled with the TV contracts wasn't bright. And their last "offer" wasn't exactly on the up and up, though it was a starting point for everyone to work from.

 

[Fencer]

As the federal judge said when she refused an injunction to my side of a dispute -- if, in the eyes of the law, harm can be repaired by money then, in the eyes of the law, it is not irreparable.

I guess there might be counterexamples in circumstances where the offender's pockets are too shallow, but that would not be found to be the case here.

 

[Don Kipines]

As the federal judge said when she refused an injunction to my side of a dispute -- if, in the eyes of the law, harm can be repaired by money then, in the eyes of the law, it is not irreparable.

I guess there might be counterexamples in circumstances where the offender's pockets are too shallow, but that would not be found to be the case here.

The average career for an NFL player is just a few years. When a lockout threatens to take away a full year or even part of a year of a player's career, there is a clear prima facie argument for irreparable harm.

If your argument is that the players are not being injured by being unemployed because 30 million other people are unemployed and they should just deal with it... well, I guess that could be a viable legal argument. I've never actually heard someone try it in court before, the "deal with it" defense, but it does have possibilities, now that I think about it.

 

[Fencer]

The average career for an NFL player is just a few years. When a lockout threatens to take away a full year or even part of a year of a player's career, there is a clear prima facie argument for irreparable harm.

If your argument is that the players are not being injured by being unemployed because 30 million other people are unemployed and they should just deal with it... well, I guess that could be a viable legal argument. I've never actually heard someone try it in court before, the "deal with it" defense, but it does have possibilities, now that I think about it.

No. My point is that whatever harm is being done to the players can -- at least in the eyes of the law -- be repaired later via monetary damages.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The rhetoric continues to increase. Next players will compare their situations to slavery...oh...wait...never mind.

The cartel argument is a bit ridiculous. If they really feel that the NFL is a cartel conspiring to keep their wages down, they are free to go play in another league like the UFL or CFL, where they may learn a few things about how the real world works.

 

[letekro]

Players call NFL a 'cartel' in court filing - NFL - Sporting News



Hmm.. The players want a CBA without unionizing?? That would be a first. What "irreparable harm" are they suffering currently? This is a time where they are not paid a normal paycheck. The only payment they receive is any stipend from any OTA they might attend. And, during this time, they are responsible for their own work-outs. Did those workouts change all of a sudden from the end of last season??? I think not. The only ones who are minimally affected are the rookies. Not ALL the players.



While they can't sign contracts, they most certainly CAN workout. In fact, we read every day how many of them ARE working out. So, again, how are they being harmed? Because a select few of the contractors are unemployed?? I have news for them, there are some 30 million people in the US who are unemployed right now. Deal with it.

As for the players basically demanding that their Anti-trust lawsuit move forward before the Appeals court has ruled on the League Appeal over the lockout, I'm sorry, but no, it shouldn't. Their Anti-trust lawsuits are inextricably tied to the Lock-out. They are only valid if the Appeals Court rules in their favor. Otherwise, they are not valid because they were filed PRIOR to the end of the CBA which, in and of itself is a violation of the CBA.

Every day that goes by, it's patently clear that the Players continue to act as a UNION and not as a trade association. And every day that passes, it becomes more and more clear that too many of the players are out of touch with reality.

And, yes, I agree with other people who have said that the AGENTS are more of a driving force behind this than the players and that the lawyers are actually the worst of the bunch.

It didn't have to get to this point, but it's clear that the players haven't bargained in good faith.

Oh, and that isn't to say that the owners have kept their noses clean. They haven't. The garbage they pulled with the TV contracts wasn't bright. And their last "offer" wasn't exactly on the up and up, though it was a starting point for everyone to work from.

This is the way litigation works. Each side takes absurdly self-serving positions and then ultimately they meet somewhere in the middle. Not sure why you're looking for a balanced account of the situation in court filings.

 

[Sfpat]

The average career for an NFL player is just a few years. When a lockout threatens to take away a full year or even part of a year of a player's career, there is a clear prima facie argument for irreparable harm.

If your argument is that the players are not being injured by being unemployed because 30 million other people are unemployed and they should just deal with it... well, I guess that could be a viable legal argument. I've never actually heard someone try it in court before, the "deal with it" defense, but it does have possibilities, now that I think about it.

What confuses me is this concept that the players have a legal right (entitlement) to play NFL football. No one forces them to play and if the NFL didn't exist, they would have to do something else. As far as I know, no one is forced to play (this isn't East Germany). And if they don't like the conditions under which they work, which are known prior to entering their field, they are free to do something else.

And yes, I understand the players have put time and effort into preparing for their chosen career - playing in the NFL. but others do the same to prepare for their careers and no-one is fighting for their right to work (My daughter just graduated with an education degree. Where is her right to work in her chosen field). The players can always wait tables, which is what other people do who are unable to work in their chosen field.

So, a group of men (owners) decide to start a business entertaining people with football games and now the workers get to call the business shots, backed up by the force of the government. Somehow, our labor laws are way out of order. No wonder unemployment is so high in this country.

 

[patriot lifer]

The rhetoric continues to increase. Next players will compare their situations to slavery...oh...wait...never mind.

The cartel argument is a bit ridiculous. If they really feel that the NFL is a cartel conspiring to keep their wages down, they are free to go play in another league like the UFL or CFL, where they may learn a few things about how the real world works.

To be fair and bring things back to the middle in this thread, the rhetoric continues on both sides. The owners (via the Commissioner and others in the central office) have been quite vocal in their own propaganda. (Insert reasons why their's is different here____)

e.g.
NFLLabor.com

As for the argument over the owners working together to make sure they get the best deal (cartel argument), of course they're working together. I'd do the same thing. Having to wait 5 years until free agency and the franchise tag, these are all major obstacles to creating a true meritocracy and making the league truly capitalistic. It isn't something that I want to go away, but I can't tell myself that the players don't have something there.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

What confuses me is this concept that the players have a legal right (entitlement) to play NFL football. No one forces them to play and if the NFL didn't exist, they would have to do something else. As far as I know, no one is forced to play (this isn't East Germany). And if they don't like the conditions under which they work, which are known prior to entering their field, they are free to do something else.

And yes, I understand the players have put time and effort into preparing for their chosen career - playing in the NFL. but others do the same to prepare for their careers and no-one is fighting for their right to work (My daughter just graduated with an education degree. Where is her right to work in her chosen field). The players can always wait tables, which is what other people do who are unable to work in their chosen field.

So, a group of men (owners) decide to start a business entertaining people with football games and now the workers get to call the business shots, backed up by the force of the government. Somehow, our labor laws are way out of order. No wonder unemployment is so high in this country.

I agree with almost this entire post. Just on that last bit regarding labour laws, it's worth noting that compared to the rest of the developed nations in the world, the US is actually quite pro business, and may be the worst country to work in as an employee.

And I'm not sure that I'd attribute unemployment to the labour laws. Italy, France, and the UK all have much better labour laws, yet all have lower unemployment than the US. This recession was triggered by the big banks, not the unionized auto workers or teachers taking the summer off or the minimum-wage guy at Walmart who just got health insurance for the first time.

 

[Ring 6]

What confuses me is this concept that the players have a legal right (entitlement) to play NFL football. No one forces them to play and if the NFL didn't exist, they would have to do something else. As far as I know, no one is forced to play (this isn't East Germany). And if they don't like the conditions under which they work, which are known prior to entering their field, they are free to do something else.

And yes, I understand the players have put time and effort into preparing for their chosen career - playing in the NFL. but others do the same to prepare for their careers and no-one is fighting for their right to work (My daughter just graduated with an education degree. Where is her right to work in her chosen field). The players can always wait tables, which is what other people do who are unable to work in their chosen field.

So, a group of men (owners) decide to start a business entertaining people with football games and now the workers get to call the business shots, backed up by the force of the government. Somehow, our labor laws are way out of order. No wonder unemployment is so high in this country.

The argument is that the owners are using illegal means to control the work relationship.
Anti Trust laws were designed to keep one company from controlling an industry 9or comnpanies colluding) so that the workers had no choice and were subject to whatever the company wanted to force upon them because it was work there or starve.
If you worked in a coal mine, and the mine owner was your landlord, and you had credit at the company store and the mine owners had an agreement to not hire each others workers, you had no choice but to accept what they offer, not chance to complain about pay, hours or work conditions, etc. Those people needed the protection of the law. When Antirust was written workers were at some level akin to slaves.
The NFLPA* is using those laws to argue that the players are being held down by ownership. They are not arguing or suing for a better split in the CBA they are suing for the owners and the league structure itself to be declared illegal. It is blatabtly obvious to me that the only end game they have is a better CBA than has been offered, so if they were to win, they would enter settlement talks, giving up what they just won for more money. I find it kind of slimy.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with almost this entire post. Just on that last bit regarding labour laws, it's worth noting that compared to the rest of the developed nations in the world, the US is actually quite pro business, and may be the worst country to work in as an employee.

And I'm not sure that I'd attribute unemployment to the labour laws. Italy, France, and the UK all have much better labour laws, yet all have lower unemployment than the US. This recession was triggered by the big banks, not the unionized auto workers or teachers taking the summer off or the minimum-wage guy at Walmart who just got health insurance for the first time.

The unionized auto worker is responsible for the demise of the auto industry and its inability to compete with imported cars.
Well, he is not 'responsible' he just got the best deal he could, but the dynamic of the auto unions, the inflated wage scales for basically unskilled assembly line workers whose only quality allowing them to demand such high pay was their ability to join the union, and the protection of poor workers drove the cost of building a car in America so high that in order to compete we needed to subsidize them with our tax money.
When utlimately part of the excessive wages paid to unionized auto workers is coming out of my paycheck because we wouldn't let an uncompetitive dinosaur fail because it would cost the overpaid union workers their jobs, it certainly has a lot to do with the recession we are in.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

To be fair and bring things back to the middle in this thread, the rhetoric continues on both sides. The owners (via the Commissioner and others in the central office) have been quite vocal in their own propaganda. (Insert reasons why their's is different here____)

e.g.
NFLLabor.com

As for the argument over the owners working together to make sure they get the best deal (cartel argument), of course they're working together. I'd do the same thing. Having to wait 6 years until free agency and the franchise tag, these are all major obstacles to creating a true meritocracy and making the league truly capitalistic. It isn't something that I want to go away, but I can't tell myself that the players don't have something there.

I would agree that both sides are guilty of it and both sides are at fault for a deal not being done. But the cartel agreement doesn't make sense considering they formed a union and agreed to work under those conditions for a long period of time. The FA limits, franchise tags, and draft were all agreed upon by the players union. The question of whether the decertification of the union was legal or a sham is still unanswered, and that should play a significant part in whether this is just rhetoric or legit.

 

[doesntmatter1]

I usually side against unions because if I was an owner i wouldn't appreciate my employees telling me how to operate. But I have to side with the players for two simple reasons.

First they are trying to cut their salary when the nfl has made more money than it ever has and they were trying to force them to play two extra games on top of it.

If it is all about money i think they should just get rid of the salary cap and let the players make as much money as they can from big market teams. You say that will ruin the competiveness of the league. I say it wont because you can't buy championships, ask the redskins.

 

[patriot lifer]

I would agree that both sides are guilty of it and both sides are at fault for a deal not being done. But the cartel agreement doesn't make sense considering they formed a union and agreed to work under those conditions for a long period of time. The FA limits, franchise tags, and draft were all agreed upon by the players union. The question of whether the decertification of the union was legal or a sham is still unanswered, and that should play a significant part in whether this is just rhetoric or legit.

I think the answer to this has already been answered (maybe). The courts and the experts in law (the judges) are treating the cases seriously and are not speaking to this point.

I think we are getting too bogged down in what is essentially a substance over form argument. When in fact we should be thinking in terms of legal form over substance. The Union* is no longer a union legally but is one in substance. Since the battle is in the judicial system, they view the organization from the legal standpoint as opposed to what we all see.

 

[Ring 6]

I usually side against unions because if I was an owner i wouldn't appreciate my employees telling me how to operate. But I have to side with the players for two simple reasons.

First they are trying to cut their salary when the nfl has made more money than it ever has and they were trying to force them to play two extra games on top of it.

If it is all about money i think they should just get rid of the salary cap and let the players make as much money as they can from big market teams. You say that will ruin the competiveness of the league. I say it wont because you can't buy championships, ask the redskins.

18 games was off the table early in the negotiations.
No player will get a paycut. The owners are proposing that the players receive a smaller percentage of an increasing amount, because in retrospect the agreement in place did not address the costs of doing business to thier satisfaction.

The Redskins have had to deal with a salary cap so that example is not pertinent.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The unionized auto worker is responsible for the demise of the auto industry and its inability to compete with imported cars.
Well, he is not 'responsible' he just got the best deal he could, but the dynamic of the auto unions, the inflated wage scales for basically unskilled assembly line workers whose only quality allowing them to demand such high pay was their ability to join the union, and the protection of poor workers drove the cost of building a car in America so high that in order to compete we needed to subsidize them with our tax money.
When utlimately part of the excessive wages paid to unionized auto workers is coming out of my paycheck because we wouldn't let an uncompetitive dinosaur fail because it would cost the overpaid union workers their jobs, it certainly has a lot to do with the recession we are in.

I don't want to get totally side-tracked here. But the compensation structure for auto workers between the UAW and non-union companies like Toyota is different, but not necessarily cheaper. A huge portion of costs for UAW employees are legacy benefit costs for retirees. Meanwhile, Toyota and other Japanese auto makers provide bonuses when the company does well, which in many instances boosts a non-union employee's pay above a unionized worker. That link was also done back before the recession when the UAW had to give up major concessions.

GM and Chrysler were failing because they consistently made poor decisions over the past 25 years. Some of those poor decisions were with bad deals with the union, I agree. But many had nothing to do with the union. Business Weekly had a nice summary of GM's failures under Rick Wagoner. Companies like Ford have very innovative cars in Europe but they didn't/wouldn't/are only now starting to bring them over to the US.

I'm not saying unions aren't a part of the problem. But they're a very minor part compared to the huge management-level ****-ups these companies have had over the years.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the answer to this has already been answered (maybe). The courts and the experts in law (the judges) are treating the cases seriously and are not speaking to this point.

I think we are getting too bogged down in what is essentially a substance over form argument. When in fact we should be thinking in terms of legal form over substance. The Union* is no longer a union legally but is one in substance. Since the battle is in the judicial system, they view the organization from the legal standpoint as opposed to what we all see.

I think its a tricky situation.
Tom Brady, et al, renounced their union so they could sue.
It seems obvious that the best result they can hope to get is to win, they reach a settlement where they trade the damages for a more lucrative CBA, thereby reforning the union that they needed to abolish to sue that the very system they agreed to as a union is illegal because they are not one as of today.
However, you cannot tell Tom Brady his doesn't have legal rights as an nonunionized employee of the NFL because you think he will collectively bargain those rights away in the future.
Its a very tricky issue.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't want to get totally side-tracked here. But the compensation structure for auto workers between the UAW and non-union companies like Toyota is different, but not necessarily cheaper. A huge portion of costs for UAW employees are legacy benefit costs for retirees. Meanwhile, Toyota and other Japanese auto makers provide bonuses when the company does well, which in many instances boosts a non-union employee's pay above a unionized worker. That link was also done back before the recession when the UAW had to give up major concessions.

GM and Chrysler were failing because they consistently made poor decisions over the past 25 years. Some of those poor decisions were with bad deals with the union, I agree. But many had nothing to do with the union. Business Weekly had a nice summary of GM's failures under Rick Wagoner. Companies like Ford have very innovative cars in Europe but they didn't/wouldn't/are only now starting to bring them over to the US.

I'm not saying unions aren't a part of the problem. But they're a very minor part compared to the huge management-level ****-ups these companies have had over the years.

Being overpaid to install a lug nut because you unionized and getting bonusses when the company does well are entirely different things. Earning more money because you do a good job is different than earning more money because the union tries to break the back of the company.
We haven't even gotten into the collectively bargainned protections that keep poor workers in their jobs.

Regardless of the reason for the failures of the auto industry the sole reason that my tax money is going to them is that the government would not allow them to fail, because they didn't want the jobs lost. Our economy is supposed to be based upon the survival of the fittest, yet my tax dollars are going, ultimately to overpay disinterested workers working for companies that should have been allowed to fail, so that they can keep the jobs that contributed to why the companies should have failed in the first place.

 

[Rob0729]

Both sides have been pretty pathetic in their legal briefs. The NFL used quotes of jokes by players like Welker that they are enjoying the lockout as proof they are not suffering harm.

 

[DaBruinz]

I usually side against unions because if I was an owner i wouldn't appreciate my employees telling me how to operate. But I have to side with the players for two simple reasons.

First they are trying to cut their salary when the nfl has made more money than it ever has and they were trying to force them to play two extra games on top of it.

If it is all about money i think they should just get rid of the salary cap and let the players make as much money as they can from big market teams. You say that will ruin the competiveness of the league. I say it wont because you can't buy championships, ask the redskins.

Your first point is false. None of the offers to the Unionized players had any of the current contracts being cut. What was going to be cut was the TOTAL amount available to be spent on players.

As for your second point, seem like you aren't old enough to remember the times before the current CBA. And, while you can't "buy a Championship" you can force teams small market teams out of business because they won't be able to compete with the salaries. So, they end up moving or folding. And that is a detriment to the entire league...