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

[MassPats38]

Same issues as Krapernick.

And you can always take "legal action," because some publicity hack will file a complaint. A successful action? Not likely.

The unfairness of NFL contracts is a case study in basic contract law in many law schools (the nature of "we can keep you for x years and you cannot leave, but we can axe you next year if we want to do so for no reason at all").

Reid is a free agent. Barring direct evidence of collusion or actionable discrimination, teams are legally free to sign or not sign anyone. Hate to say it, but I am surprised Reid is surprised (based on his concession he won't protest - I know this is Sherman speaking out) by the billionaire response to him after last year. Any player viewed as toxic to the bottom line of that group, whatever the reason may be for that, has to be a world beater and not just good to overcome that hurdle and strike a deal with a team.

 

[Froob]

Safety market seems like it’s in freeze, but putting that aside, I’m not sure how you can go to court and quantify how good of a player Reid is in a legal sense.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Same issues as Krapernick.

And you can always take "legal action," because some publicity hack will file a complaint. A successful action? Not likely.

The unfairness of NFL contracts is a case study in basic contract law in many law schools (the nature of "we can keep you for x years and you cannot leave, but we can axe you next year if we want to do so for no reason at all").

Reid is a free agent. Barring direct evidence of collusion or actionable discrimination, teams are legally free to sign or not sign anyone. Hate to say it, but I am surprised Reid is surprised by the billionaire response to him after last year. Any player viewed as toxic to the bottom line of that group, whatever the reason may be for that, has to be a world beater and not just good to overcome that hurdle and strike a deal with a team.

I don't deal with labor law. I'm a bit hazy what sort of communications would be considered "out of bounds" for purposes of that CBA provision.

If one club executive sent an email or text to another saying "boy! That Reid guy has some extreme views that may alienate fans and cause distractions on the team" would that be a case?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I don't deal with labor law. I'm a bit hazy what sort of communications would be considered "out of bounds" for purposes of that CBA provision.

If one club executive sent an email or text to another saying "boy! That Reid guy has some extreme views that may alienate fans and cause distractions on the team" would that be a case?

Somehow Reid’s attorneys would have to get a hold of that email. It’s very unlikely that an antitrust suit would go anywhere for him. The teams have a right to not hire someone because it alienates their fanbase.

 

[Ring 6]

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 laws.

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

This is not the place to get into a legal debate.
And googling things doesn’t prove law. We will have to agree to disagree.

I’ll just end with one comment. Collusion among companies creating a monopoly in an industry is not the same thing as franchises within a league colluding to keep salaries down in violation of a cba.

 

[bbobbo]

provisions in article 17 of the CBA:



and

 

[SHOWTIME15]

This is not the place to get into a legal debate.

It’s a thread about legal issues and the OP asked for help in understanding the law. I just gave my opinion.

 

[Froob]

This is not the place to get into a legal debate.
And googling things doesn’t prove law. We will have to agree to disagree.

I’ll just end with one comment. Collusion among companies creating a monopoly in an industry is not the same thing as franchises within a league colluding to keep salaries down in violation of a cba.

I mean, after the mental gymnastics we went through past few years with the NFL in court, I wouldn’t rule anything out. Brady was suspended on a clause that was only intended to punish teams (or did I get it backwards, either way). If you can be heard in court, literally anything can happen.

 

[MassPats38]

I don't deal with labor law. I'm a bit hazy what sort of communications would be considered "out of bounds" for purposes of that CBA provision.

If one club executive sent an email or text to another saying "boy! That Reid guy has some extreme views that may alienate fans and cause distractions on the team" would that be a case?

I would seriously doubt it. What you described would not be an agreement, or even a suggestion of an agreement of collusion.

I suspect you have this type of e-mails between friends and colleagues in the NFL all the time (without more, a cautionary statement may be personal opinion among friends but would not in itself seem to be enough to claim blackball action).

 

[Ring 6]

It’s a thread about legal issues...

Sure but non lawyers googling examples to try to make legal arguments that support their surface understanding of applicable laws is pointless.
Unless you tell me that you gave studied extensively on anti trust laws, how they apply to sports leagues and how courts have settled these disputes your googling an article and telling me what you think it might mean isn’t a productive discussion.

 

[Kontradiction]

Sure but non lawyers googling examples to try to make legal arguments that support their surface understanding of applicable laws is pointless.
Unless you tell me that you gave studied extensively on anti trust laws, how they apply to sports leagues and how courts have settled these disputes your googling an article and telling me what you think it might mean isn’t a productive discussion.

@MassPats38 is an attorney, IIRC. Perhaps he can weigh in.

 

[Ring 6]

I mean, after the mental gymnastics we went through past few years with the NFL in court, I wouldn’t rule anything out. Brady was suspended on a clause that was only intended to punish teams (or did I get it backwards, either way). If you can be heard in court, literally anything can happen.

But that doesn’t change which laws something applies to.
Brady ultimately was found to have been punished for conduct detrimental by a Nan given dictator powers in that area by the cba and the court ruled he can do whatever he wants even if everyone else in the world knows he is wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

@MassPats38 is an attorney, IIRC. Perhaps he can weigh in.

That would be productive. Arguing over guessing is not

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Sure but non lawyers googling examples to try to make legal arguments that support their surface understanding of applicable laws is pointless.
Unless you tell me that you gave studied extensively on anti trust laws, how they apply to sports leagues and how courts have settled these disputes your googling an article and telling me what you think it might mean isn’t a productive discussion.

Then put me in ignore. The OP asked for help from attorneys (which includes me)...he didn’t say antitrust attorneys. Besides, you would hard-pressed to find an antitrust attorney on this board, whether in private practice or someone who works for the DOJ/FTC. They comprise a very small part of the bar.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I would seriously doubt it. What you described would not be an agreement, or even a suggestion of an agreement of collusion.

I suspect you have this type of e-mails between friends and colleagues in the NFL all the time (without more, a cautionary statement may be personal opinion among friends but would not in itself seem to be enough to claim blackball action).

I wouldn't be so sure. In discrimination cases, this is the sort of stuff they use to try to prove "intent." You're not going to get an email or text that says "hey! let's blackball this guy!" You're going to get stuff like I suggested and then a lot of lawyer spin.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Baseball has been guilty of collusion several times over the years, but in every case, that collusion was to keep players salaries down, not keep a malcontent off the field.

Reid and Kapernick would both have a tough time, getting past the Ray Rice comparison in trying to prove any collusion case.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'd sign him.......the dude can play

as for the kneeling, who gives a sh.t

 

[SHOWTIME15]

provisions in article 17 of the CBA:



and

In other words, any action by Reid or Kaepernick will eventually end up before Goodell...and we know how that will turn out.

 

[Ring 6]

Then put me in ignore. The OP asked for help from attorneys (which includes me)...he didn’t say antitrust attorneys. Besides, you would hard-pressed to find an antitrust attorney on this board, whether in private practice or someone who works for the DOJ/FTC. They comprise a very small part of the bar.

I’m sorry that I suggested that it would be pointless to argue legal matters by googlinf things that may or may not apply. Surely that’s what the board wants.

 

[maineman209]

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.

Seems to me that there was ultimately some SCOTUS ruling reaffirming freedom of association (and freedom of speech) in reaction to the "red scare black-balling" of the 1950s. Don't know for certain, though.