TheBostonStraggler
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- May 21, 2006
- Messages
- 6,318
- Reaction score
- 5,687
Let's not fool ourselves that this is setting any precedent.
There are parts of the decision that Gunn highlights in which the majority argues that a sports league in particular is different from other businesses because these decisions relate to conduct on the playing field. They state blatantly, "Only the league can adjudicate in matters such as this." In other words, this for them has more to do with matters of playing a game. Rules. Entertainment, etc.
I'm curious why you say this? Would this be the first ruling that seemingly had specifics that were then applied in a more blanket fashion?
I'd also argue this, what law says 'if its sports then whatever an arbitrator says is Ok'? If there is one then this ruling makes more sense. If there isn't one then this is why we get into these messes(mess). The law is the law and should not be open to the whim of a fallible human to say 'well this is just sports so the law doesn't apply?". When that happens the ramifications are in fact potentially severe. Again if the arbitrator laws specify that sports gets treated different and the arbitrator is not subject to that of a shop floor worker then I understand the ruling better (not like it but understand it). Otherwise tom brady in the locker room or on the field is essentially the same as joe blow on the shop floor or in the break room.