You're mistaken on a number of counts.
The NFL can, in fact, continue to operate using the terms of the last collectively bargained agreement in place without making themselves liable for any damages from antitrust violations. The players could bring an antitrust suit to challenge things like the draft and restrictions to FA in the future, but there would be no damages for the players to sue for.
You also seem to remain confused about the fact that choosing to refuse to operate -- and thus preventing the free agent players from seeking employment and the players under contract from earning their salaries -- entails the biggest possible antitrust violation with the most potential damages possible on the part of the NFL. In no way can limiting damages liability be a motivation in the course of action that maximizes it.
You also are confused about the NFL's antitrust exemption if you think the players' strategy involves challenging it. The Brady suit allegations involve antitrust restrictions from which the NFL has never had an exemption from. The NFL's antitrust exemption has to do with their being able to operate as a single entity with regards to selling their broadcast rights. It doesn't have anything to do with the labor dispute.
Finally, I'm not sure exactly how you think the NLRB and 8th circuits' pending rulings are relevant to a discussion of whether the NFLPA's decertification in any way "forced" a lockout. The only thing "forcing" the lockout is the fact that the players are fine with playing under the terms of the previous CBA, and thus would not have much incentive to make concessions so long as those terms are in place.
Where you get the basis for your assumptions and interperatations of the limitations of both the players and owners case is way beyond comprehension because the Atty's and judges havent come to an answer yet.
Any and all owner agreed to restrictions placed on the players, their agents, and player association, includeing UDFA's or anyone who wants to say their occupational future was limited by the owners colaboration of rules is in play.
Again you make an assumption as to the limitations of liability, and the owners options. The owners still maintain the decertification was an unfair and illeagle labor practice mearly to gain barganing leverage and head off the lockout. Also the NFLPA decertified before the expiaration of the old CBA, which opened them up to the SHAM decertification accusations. So the NFL aproached the NLRB(National Labor Relations Board) for a ruleing on the matter, being that it is a labor matter. If the NLRB sides with the owners the decertification will be ruled invalid and the lockout is justified. The NFLPA went before Judge Nelson to try to invalidate the NLRB's ruleing before it even came down, and now it apears that Nelson will be over ruled. The NLRB's ruleing is still yet to come after the 8th appelet court determines it is a labor matter. If the NLRB sides with the NFL and the lockout is valid there are no damages and untill the ruleing comes down no violation exists.
The largest misinterperatation-you make is the limitations of the antitrust lawsuit, which touches virtualy ANYTHING that has to do with league bussiness, opperational rules,player and agent restrictions,retirement, ect. Any decision made and agreed to by the franchises and enforced by the franchises cumulatively. If a player wants to wear his own endorsement add and the NFL says no, violation,if a no. 1 draft player wants to put himself out to bid the NFL says no, violation,any free agent restrictions, violation, with no union representation anyone who feels like it can individualy file charges and law suits against the NFL.
You state the antitrust lawsuit has nothing to do with the labor issues, Where have you been, it is the only barganing chip the NFLPA has, and it is challenging the entire make up of the current NFL system.
The entire case could come down to the NLRB's decision, if the decertification is ruled a sham they have little to stand on. Remember the NFl agreed they would not use the Sham decertification defence if the NFLPA did not decertify till contract talks break down after the CBA had expired for a reasonable length of time.
The last two times the NFL had a work stoppage the player struck, Why did'nt they opperate under the previous CBA till an agreement could be reached? That is exactly why the NFL will not opperate under the terms of the last CBA. The owners took a bad deal on the last CBA to avoid a work stopage, and only put the problem off a few years hopeing they could come to an agreement. TO THIS DATE THE NFLPA HAS NOT EVEN PUT A CONTRACT PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE. At least the NFL has put two proposals up conceadeing many points. The NFLPA to this date refuses to discuss any compromise and expects the NFL to bid against itself with a contract till it get to a point they will accept.
Operateing under the old CBA is a violation of the antitrust laws that the players will accept because it works to their advantage. Operating under a lock out IF the decertification is ruled justified will be a violation of the antitrust laws. Operateing a lock out if the decertification stratigy is invalid is the owners right just as the players had the right to strike in the past. Untill a ruleing comes down from the NLRB as to who is right in their stratigy no one knows the legal justification. The NLRB also will not rule untill the 8th circut court determines it a labor matter in the event it does not.
