Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

Posted on: May 9, 2011 6:24 pm
 
DeMaurice Smith Posted by Josh Katzowitz

The NFL filed a 61-page brief today with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to argue why District Court Judge Susan Nelson was wrong to authorize an injunction against the NFL owners’ lockout and why that lockout should be put back into place.

Here are some of the key arguments from the owners’ team:

- Nelson was wrong because she exceeded the restraints of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which bars federal courts from issuing injunctions against certain types of labor disputes. Basically, the owners’ counsel writes that the federal court simply didn’t have the jurisdiction to end the lockout.

-The District Court was wrong to allow the injunction before the National Labor Relations Board had a chance to rule on the issue of whether the NFLPA’s decertification was a violation of its obligation to collectively bargain in good faith.

-The District Court erred by failing to recognize that the “plaintiffs’ antitrust claims are not barred by the nonstatutory labor exemption."

And oh yeah, also the decertification of the NFLPA as a union is a sham writes the owners, because when the NFLPA used the same maneuver in 1987, it was based on the NFPLA’s assertion to the court that its disclaimer “was permanent and irreversible, and not a bargaining tactic.”

They also point to the fact that the NFLPA secured the players’ permission during the 2010 season to decertify if the NFLPA decided that was the correct course to take.

Writes the owners’ team: “Countless statements of NFLPA representatives, both before and after March 11, confirm that its current 'disclaimer,' the result of a conditional authorization, is a tactical ploy. The NFLPA is not permanently abandoning collective bargaining, but instead is attempting temporarily to disclaim its union status in hopes of increasing its members’ bargaining leverage by subjecting the NFL to antitrust suits over terms and conditions of player employment.

"Repeated statements from plaintiffs and other leaders of the NFLPA indicate that the disclaimer was not made in good faith and that it is not unequivocal. For example, the President of the NFLPA stated that “the whole purpose [of disclaimer] is to have that ace in our sleeve. … And at the end of the day, guys understand the strategy, it’s been a part of the union strategy since I’ve been in the league ….”

The players’ response is due May 20.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed .
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 8, 2012 7:41 pm
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

Essential article, attribute .. It happens to be unquestionably over and over again beneficial to find each apply for that can necessary.


hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 3, 2011 12:01 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: May 10, 2011
Posted on: May 13, 2011 7:00 am
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

Thank you marpag. What a tangled web they weave..eh?



Since: Dec 16, 2006
Posted on: May 12, 2011 12:05 pm
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

Fastfish,

While I am certainly no "legal beagle" - or a beagle of any kind, for that matter - the answer to your question is probably "no, the owners could not be sued for breach of contract", although this is currently being debated in court. 

When the NFL (aka "the owners") signed their agreements with the networks several years ago, they actually wrote "lockout insurance" into their contracts with the networks.  In very simplified terms, this means that those contracts specifically stated that the networks would need to continue paying EVEN IF there were no games due to a lockout.  Nice, huh?

Actually, this is a bit of trouble for the owners.  The players association argued successfully that...

1) The owners were acting in bad faith (they were already PLANNING to have a lockout several years ago when the contracts were signed) and...

2) The owners did not carry out their obligations under the old CBA.  The CBA said that the players get 59.6% of all proceeds. This obligates the owners to maximize revenues - not only for their own benefit but also for the players.  When the owners gave the networks sweetheart deals in return for lockout insurance, they were lowering the revenue that should have been shared with the players, and they were willing to accept this reduced revenue so that the contracts would HELP the owners in a lockout and HURT the players in a lockout.

Pretty shady.

The court ruled in favor of the players and against the owners and their lockout insurance.  The owners are appealing.




Since: May 10, 2011
Posted on: May 10, 2011 6:18 pm
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

Question for the legal beagles out there: If the owners fail to put a product on the field by September, aren't they in breach of contract with the Networks?

This is not a players strike...it's an owner driven work stoppage. I'd guess that makes them liable for abrogating the contract.




Since: May 10, 2011
Posted on: May 10, 2011 2:36 pm
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

Problem is the NFL really wants the players to be a union. Helps with anti-trust, keeps the teams competitive, and so on. Funny thing is that the 8th Circuit is considered pro business and unions are considered anti business, yet the NFL is arguing to keep the union as a union and do not want an agreement without the union because then there would be no draft, no salary cap, etc. Competitive balance would go by the way side. 



Since: Nov 16, 2006
Posted on: May 10, 2011 2:09 pm
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

BRAVO Marpag!!  Well said

Dear NFL players and owners,

It is perfectly clear to every sane-minded person that neither the owners nor the players nor their legal representatives are interested even in the slightest in a correct and proper interpretation of the law.  The only thing you are interested in is getting as much money as you can. We know that.  You know that.  Everybody knows that.  So let's not waste time with tiresome and irrelevant garbage about the "Norris-LaGuardia Act" or any other such nonsense.

You want money.  The fans have it, and you don't.  So shut the hell up with your petty bickering, slice up your $9B pie, play football, and then we'll pay you.  Otherwise, not.  Get it?"

 

I love every word your statement!  I am not educated in the juducial system in the US but can the we (the fans) file some sort of anti-trust suit based on the fact that a percentage of the revenue generated are coming from the fans...Ticket sales, Jerseys, Beer...etc.....I'll bet a million dollars that some small law group looking to make it big will do some pro-bono work to get there name out there.  Wouldn't that be something





Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: May 10, 2011 11:46 am
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

I will not believe that these "business" men will do an Osama on their own golden goose. There's gonna be football. And let's not forget the 800lb gorilla, Network TV. You think theyll allow themselves to be stuck with a Sunday lineup of old movie reruns while the owners/players bicker?
100 % correct.  When ESPN, CBS, and NBC make a phone call to the owners threatening to sign a deal with the NHL/NBA/MLB for sunday afternoons because the NFL contracts are found to be null and void with no product, we'll see how long it takes for a deal to be signed...



Since: Mar 9, 2009
Posted on: May 10, 2011 9:20 am
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

I hope they league shuts down and never plays again. Then let's see how fast these moron players are arrested for slinging crack on a street corner. LOL LOL LOL.



Since: May 10, 2011
Posted on: May 10, 2011 8:58 am
 

NFL argues why the District Court was wrong

I will not believe that these "business" men will do an Osama on their own golden goose. There's gonna be football. And let's not forget the 800lb gorilla, Network TV. You think theyll allow themselves to be stuck with a Sunday lineup of old movie reruns while the owners/players bicker?


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com