Truth & Rumors > NFL

Sources: NFLPA preparing collusion case

Views
19532
Comments
129

10:35 AM ET 10.09 | The NFL Players Association is preparing a possible collusion case accusing teams of improperly conspiring to restrict players' salaries last offseason, people familiar with the preparation of the case said Friday. The case potentially will be filed within the next month, said one individual, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity because the union has made no announcement about its intentions.

Washington Post

DeMaurice Smith, Doug Benc/Getty Images DeMaurice Smith, Doug Benc/Getty Images
October 9, 2010  10:36 AM ET

R'uh r'oh, Raggy!

October 9, 2010  10:37 AM ET

this happens in a number of sports....::prepares for the fire""....but...Barry Bonds anybody?

October 9, 2010  10:49 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

this happens in a number of sports....::prepares for the fire""....but...Barry Bonds anybody?

Do you honestly believe that MLB "colluded" against Bonds? If you were an owner, GM or manager, would you want a 40-something y/o player with the kind of baggage (attitude, legal issues, etc.) that Bonds had at that time?

I certainly wouldn't and I don't think anyone in their right mind would!

October 9, 2010  10:54 AM ET

Means nothing to me....



"Honesty, born in me....Heresy"

October 9, 2010  11:18 AM ET

An interesting twist. I think the players have a case. An uncapped year, the spending spree predicted by many did not happen. The NFL presents itself as 32 separate business entities competing against each other. That's an obvious load of crap.

A spending spree in an uncapped season would weaken the owners' case regarding financial difficulties. Good move by the players. If what the owners claim is true, open your books and prove it.

October 9, 2010  11:18 AM ET

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.

If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

October 9, 2010  11:28 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

An interesting twist. I think the players have a case. An uncapped year, the spending spree predicted by many did not happen. The NFL presents itself as 32 separate business entities competing against each other. That's an obvious load of crap.

You got a contradiction there. If the NFL *isn't* 32 separate business entities, collusion cannot exist, therefore the case is groundless.

October 9, 2010  11:30 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

The NFL has a pretty strong argument that they're one entity. The teams aren't at liberty to schedule games with UFL teams or any other leagues teams.

October 9, 2010  11:30 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

Good point. The NFL is obviously a single entity. Yet, that is not how they present themselves, to circumvent anti-trust laws. They may compete for players, but don't appear to compete for revenue. TV revenue (the biggest pie) is shared equally. Stadium receipts are shared on a 60/40 basis. New stadiums are partially funded by taxpayers based on the promise of increased tax revenue. Con job.

My conclusion: Greed has no boundaries.

October 9, 2010  11:31 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Do you honestly believe that MLB "colluded" against Bonds? If you were an owner, GM or manager, would you want a 40-something y/o player with the kind of baggage (attitude, legal issues, etc.) that Bonds had at that time? I certainly wouldn't and I don't think anyone in their right mind would!

attitude...legal issues....how many times have we seen players gambled on with issues with far lesser talents. i mean...the man was CRANKING out homeruns like nobodys business. He could of easily been DH and still put up big numbers...40 y/o player..07 at age 42 he hit 28 homers...with a monster OBP

October 9, 2010  11:31 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

Good point. The NFL is obviously a single entity. Yet, that is not how they present themselves, to circumvent anti-trust laws. They may compete for players, but don't appear to compete for revenue. TV revenue (the biggest pie) is shared equally. Stadium receipts are shared on a 60/40 basis. New stadiums are partially funded by taxpayers based on the promise of increased tax revenue. Con job.My conclusion: Greed has no boundaries.

You're starting to sound like Dolemite.

October 9, 2010  11:32 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

Orf, I have no idea what you said, but I'll go with it... Just another case of "the man" holding the poor players down who are struggling to feed their families.

October 9, 2010  11:33 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

attitude...legal issues....how many times have we seen players gambled on with issues with far lesser talents. i mean...the man was CRANKING out homeruns like nobodys business. He could of easily been DH and still put up big numbers...40 y/o player..07 at age 42 he hit 28 homers...with a monster OBP

If he had McGwire or Sosa's personality, teams might have taken a chance.

October 9, 2010  11:35 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

The NFL has a pretty strong argument that they're one entity. The teams aren't at liberty to schedule games with UFL teams or any other leagues teams.

The problem for the league is that they've never had blanket Congressional legal 'blessing' for that status as has MLB. The "Who Dat" case carries risks in that no matter how strong you think your legal position may be, judges are a crap shoot.

Right now, the NFL's antitrust status is more of a 'wink and a nod' type of arrangement. It's never been codified and letting the courts decide is risky.

October 9, 2010  11:36 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

If he had McGwire or Sosa's personality, teams might have taken a chance.

If he were any kind of decent teammate someone would have lobied to bring him in. Even Bond's mother is done with him.

October 9, 2010  11:39 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

You got a contradiction there. If the NFL *isn't* 32 separate business entities, collusion cannot exist, therefore the case is groundless.

Agreed. The point is that the NFL does present itself as 32 privately owned business entities. That avoids the anti-trust regulations. There is competition, therefore anti-trust regulations do not apply. Presented as a single business entity, a strong argument can be made that it is a monopoly, subject to anti-trust laws.

You nailed it. It cannot be collusion, if the NFL is viewed as a single business entity. However, it can be viewed as a monopoly.

October 9, 2010  11:46 AM ET
QUOTE(#16):

Agreed. The point is that the NFL does present itself as 32 privately owned business entities. That avoids the anti-trust regulations. There is competition, therefore anti-trust regulations do not apply. Presented as a single business entity, a strong argument can be made that it is a monopoly, subject to anti-trust laws.You nailed it. It cannot be collusion, if the NFL is viewed as a single business entity. However, it can be viewed as a monopoly.

Doesn't the presence of the UFL undermine the monopoly argument?

October 9, 2010  11:52 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

You're starting to sound like Dolemite.

That's uncalled for. Why would you say that?

I simply maintain that the players deserve fair pay for a hard days work. If the players are willing to sacrifice current earnings for future health benefits, fine. If they are so short sighted to reject that, don't whine later. I'm obviously on the players side.

I think the players will fold like a cheap tent. A lockout season will crush most players. Guess being tough has many variables.

October 9, 2010  11:52 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

Doesn't the presence of the UFL undermine the monopoly argument?

IMO, not any more than MLB's minor leagues. The NFL wants the blessing of Congress, then *arguments* don't matter.

 
October 9, 2010  11:53 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

Doesn't the presence of the UFL undermine the monopoly argument?

No, not at all. How many times has this been attempted? The USFL was the most successful, yet folded.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    3187
    Comments
    926
  2. 2
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2854
    Comments
    866
  3. 3
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    2467
    Comments
    528
  4. 4
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    5219
    Comments
    332
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    2264
    Comments
    140

SI.com

SI Photos