Sherman: Legal action could be considered if Eric Reid isn't signed.

[Kontradiction]

Richard Sherman says 'legal action' could be taken if Eric Reid isn't signed

Richard Sherman thinks that if no one -- including his new team, the San Francisco 49ers -- ends up signing free-agent safety Eric Reid, "there would be a conversation between the league and the players union" and that "legal action" could be taken.

Introduced as a Niner on Tuesday, Sherman exuded excitement in suiting up for his former NFC West rival. But he also did not downplay the seriousness of questions pertaining to Reid, the ex-49ers safety who suggested recently that he hasn't found a new team because NFL owners disapprove of his protests dating back to 2016.

"We are concerned, because he played at a high level, made enough plays to be signed and to make his money," Sherman said, presumably speaking, at least unofficially, on behalf of the NFL Players Association. "There is concern there, because you'd think a player of his caliber would be picked up now."

Any of the resident lawyers want to weigh in if legal action could be taken at all? Seems like a ridiculous concept in a country with freedom of association.

 

[Jangles]

Never doubt a unions ability to ruin everything

 

[UGAPatsfan]

Unless collusion is the reason for him not being signed...without knowing his contract demands it’s tough to guess.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Richard Sherman says 'legal action' could be taken if Eric Reid isn't signed



Any of the resident lawyers want to weigh in if legal action could be taken at all? Seems like a ridiculous concept in a country with freedom of association.

My understanding is that it's basically the same as the Kaepernick collusion claim which is based on provisions in the CBA saying NFL clubs can't conspire with each other about player negotiations.

 

[Kontradiction]

My understanding is that it's basically the same as the Kaepernick collusion claim which is based on provisions in the CBA.

That's what I figured. Good luck with that.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Richard Sherman says 'legal action' could be taken if Eric Reid isn't signed



Any of the resident lawyers want to weigh in if legal action could be taken at all? Seems like a ridiculous concept in a country with freedom of association.

Maybe collusion among the teams in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (I’m not kidding with the name of the law). However, it would be very difficult to prove. There would have to be communications among the 32 teams not to sign Eric Reid.

 

[Ring 6]

Every owner/gm/team independently choosing not to offer a contract to a player for whatever reason, the lack of ability beingvthe most common, is not collusion. That includes politics.

 

[Ring 6]

Maybe collusion among the teams in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (I’m not kidding with the name of the law). It would be very difficult to prove. There would have to be communications among the 32 teams not to sign Eric Reid.

Pro sports leagues are exempt from the anti trust act. Why? Because they couldn’t exist under that law if it was applied.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Pro sports leagues are exempt from the anti trust act. Why? Because they couldn’t exist under that law if it was applied.

I’m not sure if pro sports teams are exempt from every aspect of the antitrust law though.

 

[chasa]

seems silly since a bunch of other players who have protested have been signed to other teams.

there is more to the story then just taking a knee during the anthem.

 

[Ring 6]

I’m not sure if pro sports teams are exempt from every aspect of the antitrust laws though.

They literally have an antitrust exemption so by definition they cannot violate anti trust laws.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

They literally have an antitrust exemption so by definition they cannot violate anti trust laws.

It might be a lot more complicated than that...there are many different aspects of our antitrust laws. My understanding of the antitrust exemption has solely to do with monopoly power. It’s called the “antitrust exemption” but that might be a misnomer.

 

[Kontradiction]

They literally have an antitrust exemption so by definition they cannot violate anti trust laws.

So on what basis was Kaepernick trying to prove collusion?

 

[Ring 6]

It might be a lot more complicated than that...there are many different aspects of our antitrust laws. My understanding of the antitrust exemption has solely to do with monopoly power. It’s called the “antitrust exemption” but that might be a misnomer.

It’s not.
I think you are confusing antitrust laws with labor laws.

 

[jah]

Seems too early for this. He should end up signing somewhere. It's just a down market for safeties and he plays like an enforcer in a relatively small body; I remember hearing he's had a few concussions. Vacarro hasn't signed anywhere either, right?

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

That's what I figured. Good luck with that.

Hard to prove, sure. However, he may be entitled to discovery of written communications between NFL club members. They may want to buy him off rather than risk something embarrassing being leaked to the public.

 

[BTTA]

The fact that Sherman mentioned legal action doesn't mean that the players are actually considering it. Pawn to King 4.

 

[Ring 6]

So on what basis was Kaepernick trying to prove collusion?

He was trying to show that owners colluded in violation if the CBA.
That’s not an anti trust issue.

Put simply the nfl violates the anti trust laws by being a monopoly but is exempt.
The owners WITHIN THE NFL ate subject to their CBA which says they cannot collide to because it would keep salaries down, as they agree to COMPETE for players.

 

[maust]

We are 9 days into FA. There are better safeties than Reid that have not yet been signed. He previously derided “the notion that I can be a great signing for your team for cheap” thus intimating he is expecting a big ticket contract and that at a position that by most accounts is looking at a market correction after becoming inflated the last few years. But yeah, 9 days in Reid hasn't 'made his money' so of course it's collusion. For a guy as smart as Sherman is purported to be by some he sure has a knack for saying things that aren't doing anyone any favors. A bright guy should also understand that enlightened self interest on the part of ownership isn't representative of anything more than good business.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

It’s not.
I think you are confusing antitrust laws with labor laws.

No I’m not. The so-called antitrust exemption (Sports Broadcasting Act) only applies to Section 1 violations of the Clayton Act and other FTC laws. I do not believe it covers the Sherman Antitrust Act Section 1, which speaks to collusion. Heck, in 2011, Brady brought an antitrust suit against the league, so it’s not as if the NFL is exempt from every part of the antitrust law.

15 U.S. Code § 1291 - Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues