As a football fan for the past decade, I have followed developments that led to the breakdown of the CBA, the League lockout and the disbanding and consequent player anti-trust suit now in the courts. I read the decisions handed down by Nelson and the 8th Circuit granting the stay of Nelson's decision to lift the lockout. The 8th Circuit language makes it clear that the owners are likely to prevail in continuing their lockout because the District Court had no jurisdiction in enjoining the lockout. Yet I know that the last time there was a big work stoppage (a player strike?) in the 1990s, the players were able to play games while suing the owners in a case that took two or three years to reach settlement. So the players at that time found legal theories that allowed them to play the game, get paid while suing the owners for antitrust violations. Why did the owners go along when they could have locked them out at that time? What are the differences? My request is for some one with a longer memory and legal understanding of facts and circumstances to explain why the players were allowed to do in the 1990s what they may be precluded from doing today. Thank you.