Blog Entry

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Posted on: May 16, 2011 6:25 pm
Edited on: May 17, 2011 4:56 am
  •  
 
Goodell, SmithPosted by Josh Katzowitz

The lockout is on, and it’s going to stay on until at least June 3.

That’s the word from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued this evening a permanent stay to District Court Judge Susan Nelson’s decision to end the lockout.

The owners and players will argue their case in front of the appeals court June 3, so this decision isn’t a surprise (it’d be a bit awkward, if the judges didn’t grant the permanent stay, which meant the lockout was lifted, only to overturn Nelson’s decision, meaning the lockout was back on).

Once again, Judge Kermit Bye dissented on the judgment, the same as he did when the appeals court granted the temporary stay April 29.

As the court wrote, it had to consider granting the stay on four factors: 1) has the stay applicant made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) whether there will be irreparable harm without a stay; 3) whether other interested parties will be injured by the stay; and 4) where the public interest lies.

Ultimately, the appeals court believed that all those factors balanced together equaled a permanent stay.

Reading through the majority decision with my untrained eye, it doesn’t sound great for the players’ chances going forward.

When you read phrases like, “The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act” and “Our present view is that (the players’) interpretation of the Act is unlikely to prevail”  and (the biggest body blow of all) “we have serious doubts that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the League’s lockout,” it can’t leave the NFLPA with a great feeling.

Bye dissented, writing the following in summary:

In sum, because I believe the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not apply in a situation where the Players are no longer represented by the union, I would conclude the NFL did not make the necessary strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, as it relates to the fourth factor, the NFL’s failure to make the necessary showing on the merits detracts from the NFL’s argument that the public interest favors the application of labor laws in the current context. At best, when considering the public interest in having a 2011 NFL season and, by extension, continuing with normal operations necessary for that objective, the public interest factor is a wash. Taken in conjunction with the balance of harms, which clearly favors the Players during the pendency of the expedited appeal, I would deny the NFL’s motion for a stay.


So, for fans and players, today’s ruling was not a good one, even though, like I said above, it wasn’t a surprise. It’s a big victory for the owners – it’s their first really big win in the court system, and now, the leverage is pointed in their direction – and it also means we’ll continue with this stalemate for at least another month.

Which means that you can forget about OTAs and offseason workouts. Training camp still could be held, but right now, that’s in real danger as well.

But perhaps more important than any of that, the players I think are in real trouble going forward. And so are the fans who want more football and less legal analysis.

UPDATED (7:13 p.m. ET): The NFLPA has released a statement in response to the ruling.

"The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season."

UPDATED II (7:48 p.m. ET): The NFL has released its own statement.

"It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans. This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation."

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

  •  
Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Jan 2, 2011
Posted on: May 16, 2011 8:33 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Who cares if they play, the NFL sucks anyway. Bunch of lazy ass players who dance after every play and have puss rules.  Take a year off..Even better tell the NBA to never come back. That leage is totally over paid and a disaster.



Since: Jan 2, 2011
Posted on: May 16, 2011 8:30 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

De Maurice...You just got ur ass ahnded down too ya. how long before you guys start crying for your head.  They are going broke, and you know now..they gonna cave.



Since: Jan 11, 2007
Posted on: May 16, 2011 8:27 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Man the more i read about stuff like this the more angry get somebody call me when this Bull**** is finally over. If it has nothing to do with the season starting i dont want to here it....This reallly Cripples a young team like mine.



Since: Dec 5, 2006
Posted on: May 16, 2011 8:19 pm
 

No, the NFL and the NFLPA will be helped

Josh, your bias on this story towards the players may be misguided. It is not, in my own opinion, in the public interest to do away with the draft, the salary cap, or the free agency rules. Should the players prevail all of those would be thrown out. The short-term interest might be to have a full 2011-2012 season but without the parity controls the league must quickly degenerate into a few major market teams that can compete for a championship. A permanent stay will encourage collective bargaining and hasten the return to football.

The problem with most of the spin put on this case is the lack of folks doing their homework. Perhaps the success of the game has blinded some into thinking it can be run without applying standard business practices. It cannot. In fact it was largely Jerry Jones who brought successful business practices into the league which has cause the revenue to soar for both players and owners. The team revenue sharing has maintained a way for small market teams to compete. Pittsburgh, Green Bay and New Orleans in recent years have reaped the benefits. The anti-trust suit by the players seeks an end to all parity mechanisms in the league. The rich enjoy many times the revenue in very large markets that the poor can raise in small markets. As the parity is destroyed the national interest is also damaged leading to lower broadcast ratings and lower payments to the league. Those lower revenues hurt the NFLPA just as they hurt the NFL.

I am in favor of collective bargaining in the NFL. The labor laws in this country provide a substantial advantage to labor (as they should). Bringing the NFLPA back to the bargaining table as their only course of action will result in a more reasonable returm on investment for the owners while providing stability and improved working conditions for the players. Perhaps in the short term the public interest is damaged but in the long term football will continue to be played with an opportunity for 32 teams to compete and win. That is what makes the game great and what needs to be maintained.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: May 16, 2011 8:11 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Can't wait for the morning shut up by Mike Freeman, he has to be crying like a little girl right now.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: May 16, 2011 8:10 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

So, for fans and players, today’s ruling was not a good one, even though, like I said above, it wasn’t a surprise.

No, for fans it is a great ruling, anyone that understands the situation, and wants football has to be happy that the law may prevail after all, and the player's bogus lawsuit should be dismissed, that the issues should be heard by the labor board as it always should have been.

As for the players, they brought this all on by greed and an incompetent Union boss.

Josh, Will, Mikey, and Andy, the four stooges for the players need to stop trying to speak for the fans. We want football, so we have to be on the side of law, and the owners in this one.

and it also means we’ll continue with this stalemate for at least another month


Or the players could drop the sham they tried, and return to the negotiation table as the Union they have always been, and remain today.

But perhaps more important than any of that, the players I think are in real trouble going forward. And so are the fans who want more football and less legal analysis.


Again, stop trying to speak for fans. We want football, the owners want football. DeMaurice Smith, and the players got the law, and backwoods law from Minnesota at that, involved. Do you really think fans are as stupid as you hope then to be? That the players need them to be?

UPDATED (7:13 p.m. ET): The NFLPA has released a statement in response to the ruling.

"The NFL’s request for a stay of the lockout that was granted today means no football. The players are in mediation and are working to try to save the 2011 season."


Translation: The NFLPA and the Players, and specifically DeMaurice Smith are still lying to the public. They could renounce their sham and return to the table any time.

The NFL has released its own statement.

"It is now time to devote all of our energy to reaching a comprehensive agreement that will improve the game for the benefit of current and retired players, teams, and, most importantly, the fans. This litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiating table where these issues should be resolved. We remain confident that the appellate court will determine that this is a labor dispute that should be governed by federal law. But the league and players, without further delay, should control their own destiny and decide the future of the NFL together through negotiation."


Exactly, the truth. The owners want football, the fans want football, the players want cash for current players only, and don't care about the fans, or the men that built th league they are lucky enough to be part of.



Since: Apr 27, 2008
Posted on: May 16, 2011 7:54 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Dont think the Supreme Court would ever get involved in this.  In order to do so they have to find some breakdown of jursprudence and that is highly unlikely.  Look the players screwed themsleves by decertifying and then enjoining a lawsuit as a labor entity.  In that sense their lawsuit has no standing with regard to collective baragining.  I was originally on the owners side...now I don't have a side.  Both the palyers and the owners seem like greedy ingrates.  Eventually a new CBA will need to be negotiated so lets get on with it.  Labor disputes between millionaires should not be clogging up the court system.   



Since: Feb 21, 2009
Posted on: May 16, 2011 7:47 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

MORON!!! You are a complete Idiot!!!



Since: Feb 21, 2009
Posted on: May 16, 2011 7:46 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Your an Idiot!!!! How does a lock-out on Football sound Good?Moron.



Since: Sep 18, 2007
Posted on: May 16, 2011 7:45 pm
 

Permanent stay ruling could really hurt NFLPA

Ark-RZR they can't do both. They can either re-cert and act as a bargaining commitee and get locked out or file anti-trust. Since they are already locked out, now as individual contractees they have to see what the courts do as the anti-trust filings are a huge issue for the owners. The players lost round two, but round three is the biggie. If the owners prevail the anti-trust suit is still intact and if the players win that one then it goes back to ground zero and the owners and players would have to go back to negotiating an association that everybody can agree to, including the courts or congress. How long do you think THAT would take?



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