Your half right and half wrong. They are not a monopoly by the strictest definition but they are treated as one by the feds. This is why they are obligated to anti-trust laws. It is also why they are forced to pay a minium amount of money to the players. The cap works both ways. In essence what you have is 32 independent companies acting as a corporation. It gets so complicated it makes my head hurt sorting it out. They have collective group profits and individual team profits.

I do agree with you about the draft. I have said that there should be no draft order and no roster limitation. Every team should be allowed to offer contracts to whoever they want and the player should be free to choose the best offer made to him. Teams should also not be limited to 53 man rosters. The salary cap prevents any 1 team from loading up on all the available talent.

IMO you either should have a roster limit or a salary cap, not both. If you go with the roster restriction, keep the draft, if you so with a salary cap ditch the draft. I do not like the hybred model they are using.

 

I say it because I think that question has come up in the past and has been settled by the courts already. Maybe I am remembering it wrong but I thought they are determined to be a hybrid of some sort in legal definitions.

 

It's not a monopoly...

What about the UFL and AFL?

No one forces anyone to sign anything.

Just no.

 

If it was just no then they would not be subject to anti-trust laws. It is complicated.

 

The point of my statement was that if anything were illegal about it, something would've been done over the past 100 years of the NFL (and AFL)... if the system is so flawed, if so many people have gotten screwed, something would've been done before the expiration of a deal. Hell, the last deal never would've been signed, or the one before that, or the one before that...

 

How is it a monopoly? A monopoly is when one competitor dominates a market to the point where it can be said that it IS the market. So, who dominates the football market—the “NFL” (as in the NFL HQ in New York) or one of the 32 teams? The fact that there’s 32 teams in constant competition undermines the monopoly argument. Further undermining comes if you classify the NFL as a sports league rather than just a football league; suddenly the NFL has legitimate competition from MLB, the NBA, NHL, NASCAR, golf, and more.

The NFL is not a monopoly in the sports market. It might be an oligopoly if all 32 teams collude in the football market.

The owners did not “blink”. DeMaurice Smith stabbed them in the eyes and claimed he did it for our benefit.

 

I agree with you that there is nothing illegal about how it is structured.

 

Sorry, but there’s more justification that the NFL is an oligopoly than a monopoly. There’s no way 32 separate competitive entities can constitute a monopoly. That’s not what the term means. The Lions wish they had that sort of dominance.

Though I admit it depends on which court says what and when.

 

This is an over-simplification of the reality of the particular business. In strict legal terms, they are not a monopoly as proven by the 1987 lawsuit and several other times, for example the American Needle case. I'm not a proponent of the courts deciding how businesses should or should not be run and pro sports are different than the "monopoly laws" intended purposes. The ability of the league to maintain fairness between each of it's entities dictates that they have certain rules, such as the draft, salary cap, rules for FA, etc. Nearly all these things are negotiated in the CBA.

Business have the right to hire who they want based on qualifications. The draft merely keeps the field level. An example of how that doesn't work in the sports world is baseball and each teams ability to 'buy' a championship, something we've seen happen over and over. I think the current setup, money distribution notwithstanding, has allowed the NFL to become the most popular and most profitable sport in the world. There is a blend of both Communism and Democracy, which makes the league successful. Too bad the owners and the players can't seem to get together.

The problem is that, as the economy has dipped over the last 5 yrs, the owners are now finding themselves responsible for building and maintaining new facilities, something that in the past has been able to be passed on to taxpayers. That is no longer the case and that's why the owners want to 'turn the clock back' so to speak. The players need to realize this before even more PR damage is done. To my mind, based on Pash's comments on Friday, the owners made a pretty solid offer and the players apparently didn't even spend any time looking at it before they decertified.

One other opinion I have is the Union's undying need to 'see the books'. This isn't a partnership...the players didn't come to the owners and request that they get into business and put up their fortunes to get it started. The players are the employees and NO other business would turn their books over to the employees and should not have to either.

All that said, these guys all need to figure out how to fix this and get us back to the business of football. The Goose that lays the Golden Eggs is dying, quickly...

 

Re: the Draft -

Most collegiate graduates would be so lucky as to be entered into a draft in their field where the top 260 each year get $300,000 salaries.

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you get to work where you want or for the company you want. In fact you could have a lot of trouble finding a desirable job (if one at all) in your field if you have a strict desire to work in a particular industry or location.

NFL draftees do not forfeit a years salary if they choose not to sign with the team that drafts them, they just aren't able to work for the NFL. They can go be McDonald's manager or car salesmen, or anything else they qualify for if they so choose.

 

The draft would not be ruled illegal, just like it wasn't ruled illegal that a player must be 3 years removed from their High School graduating class to be eligble for the draft.

 

Sorry, next time I'll have my secretary proof it...hehehe

EDIT: Hey South....I edited my original text for ya....

 

It is complicated but the issue is the players feel like the revenue is their money.

D Smith: "Year 1 the players write the owners a check for 500 million, year 2 the players write the owners a check for............" WHAT? THe players dont write checks, OWNERS write checks. Check the dictionary for meaning of owner. the entitlement attitude of this nation is ridiculous.Yes you have the talent people come to see and thus deserve a just compensation for making the owners money. But make no mistake, players are employees, they do not own. So until the players accept responsibility for some stadium debt, you aint ENTITLED to the revenue. You have a right to receive the agreed upon compensation.

Now it could be and probably is semantics because I believe the players have every right to ask why they are being asked to give up a benefit they were receiving already. They dont have to agree to the compensation package, but that rev isnt the players not 1 dime, not one penny.

 

It's actually more of a cartel than a monopoly with 32 different owners working together. Not exactly legal still but a bit different. And it is subject to anti-trust laws but you don't see suits where the players sue the nfl of antitrust violations because they weren't allowed due to having a union. When employees have a union all their power is in the bargaining process and being able to negotiate a cbs. As a result they can't sue in antitrust litgation. This is why the union decertified, so they could sue. Outside of the players you still see antitrust lasuits (see american needle v. Nfl) typically from competing companied who have been screwed over by exclusive contracts.

Also historically there had been a big issue in determining antitrust status with sport leagues, because a lot of it is subject to judicial interpretation. I wrote a research paper on how baseball's antitrust exemption was created. It is interesting and quite infurriating at the same time

 

miss 1 game and it is dead to me... forever

 

The players have thier fair share of dirty laundry in this too.

 

Wow, thanks for proving me wrong with all your evidence. :rolleyes:

 

Ticket prices, parking fees. beer and food prices etc........

 

Ergo the team makes every financial decision that impacts the revenue used to pay these divas.

 

I'm no lawyer, and I dont care about any of this fine print crap.

If the owners are losing money, fine. They can do like AIG, Fannie, Freddie, GM, & the rest. Take a bailout, become publicly owned business, like the Packers, and then all the owners "losses" will go to the taxpayers & they can go back to real estate or arms smuggling or whatever they did before they had the horrible financial burden of running an NFL franchise.

Each city will own their own team, the fans will be the shareholders. That'll give people a real reason to go to the games. Problem solved.

 

you're the man...

 

how is it a monopoly when noone else is competing against it. you would need another league competing against it to consider it a monopoly. it is beyond a monopoly. it is professional football itself. the flaw with the courts is they consider it 32 seperate businesses but it is in fact one business with 32 independant branches. finsincebirth actually is correct in saying the closest definition you can come up with is that nfl is a cartel

 

They have every say in the matter. If they don't want to play for a particular team or a particular location they don't sign. Simple as that. They are then free to seek whatever other job they want outside the NFL. A job in the NFL (just like with any other company) is not a right.

 

In 1986 they were found to be a predatory monopoly and again in 1993, that is how Judge Doty is involved.

As for illegal, eh, not really, they may restrain trade however other leagues are free to compete for TV contracts or the use of public stadiums, that is what got them into hot water in 1986, the Eagles strong armed the Vet into canceling the USFL's flagship team's lease.

 

LOL I was just answering the question of what pricing individual teams controlled. I was not implying it to be significant enough to pay the players salaries or benefits. Basically owners own the stadiums and they control those profits separate from the league, like if they rent the stadium out to have a concert or lease out its naming rights. Those are team profits not league revenue.


BTW those of you arguing that the players make the game and are entiled to more money, why arnt you arguing that the coaches should be in the union too. Shouldnt they be included in the 60% of the revenues too? How good do you think these atheletes would be without coaching and medical people assisting them.