And that is where the Anti Trust lawsuits come into play on behalf of the Tom Brady's of the NFL, the NFL is attempting to both be unified, and distinct entities, but eegads if you like football you really do not wish for those lawsuits to go forwards as both sides have the deep pockets to keep it going for 2 yrs or more.
Thats false. The Supreme Court has said the NFL is 32 separate businesses. Those 32 business owners collude to maximize their profits. Now I have absolutely no problem with it, because I think its what is best for the sport. I think the owners make way too much money, and I think the players make way too much money. The NFLPA colludes with the 32 business owners. They fleece the consumer, and they fight over the bounty. But please, spare me the nonsense about no other industry sharing revenue with employees. The owners violate anti-trust laws, and they pay the players off not to take them to court.
In the American Needle case the NFL claimed to be one entity. The Courts said they were 32 separate, competing businesses, but only when it comes to merchandise. The decision is not finalized and is being appealed.
(I missread your first post. You can open a Stringer Burger without permission from McDonalds etc etc) However, WTH does that have to do with anything?
Really? So tell me, do those "franchises" such as BK and McDonald's then get together and decide who has exclusive rights to employees who wish to work at a restuarant? What do you suppose the NFL draft boils down to, BK nd McD's and 30 other chains decide on whom has the right to obtain the rights to whomever annnounces they "want to cook for a living".
How can an owner "make way too much money"? The owner makes what he profits. If the employee doesn't like his pay he can find another job. If YOU, as the consumer, thinks that the NFL owner makes too much money don't watch football or buy and merchandise. The idea that a person can "EARN TOO MUCH MONEY" is just plain wrong.
I don't understand your post. The draft boils down to owners of a business getting the best player for their team. They, the owners, choose how the draft is done by voting. Again, capitalism. I think I finally see what some of you are wanting. I don't agree with it. I agree with capitalism. I agree with working hard. I agree with the owners. Being rich doesn't mean you're always wrong. Some of you seem to think so, though.
Because the fact is, you can't start a professional football team unless you have other teams to play. When 32 other teams collude to not play anyone but themselves, its anti-competitive. I cannot call Jerry Jones and say "hey come play my team in November" because Jerry Jones has formed an agreement with 31 other businesses not to do business with anyone else. Again, if you are an NFL owner, you can put out a ****ty product. Paul Brown can put out a ****ty product, because there is no other NFL team in Cincinnati. There is no other team you can watch play against the Ravens, Dolphins, Texans, etc. Now again, I personally favor this collusion, because its better than the alternative. But please forgive me if I don't think someone like Paul Brown or Dan Snyder should make a cent more than the lowest paid NFL player.
Hmm, put it this way, why can't Andrew Luck sign with whichever team he wishes to sign with as his own choice? For example, why couldn't he just sign with..Minnesota? What prevents him from selling his wares to the highest bidder in the NFL's version of "capitalism"?
Business owners getting together, and voting on how to divide the labor pool is the complete opposite of capitalism. What would be capitalism is college players being able to sign with whomever they choose. Letting players avoid going to teams like Cincinnati, and having Paul Brown either run a better franchise, or go out of business. What would be capitalism is eliminating the salary cap, and letting the richest owners pay as much as they want to a player. Let Jerry Jones give Peyton Manning $40M a season. That would be capitalism.
Exactly, the draft is "competitive" for the NFL, the dicker amongst themselves over choices in the draft, but they do not allow "capitalism" to decide who plays were, their own system dictates who goes where. As for "some of you guys think rich folks are always wrong" Not so, I think they generate tremendous wealth for numerous non owners, from TV Networks to Players to Beer Companies, I also think the NFLPA rarely looks out for players other than to generate wealth for the NFLPA at the expense of the small fry players.
In essence, the jury felt that while the USFL was harmed by the NFL's de factomonopolization of pro football in the United States, most of its problems were due to its own mismanagement. It awarded the USFL only one dollar in nominal damages, which was tripled under antitrust law to three dollars. It later emerged that the jury incorrectly assumed that the judge could increase the award.
