Supreme Court Tackles Dispute Over NFL Authority

FOXNews.com ^ | January 13, 2010 | Lee Ross

[Eyes Unclouded]

In a fight as fierce as any seen in the Super Bowl, lawyers on Wednesday tussled with Supreme Court justices in a case examining the fundamental operations of the 32-team National Football League.

The NFL asserts that as a legal joint venture it operates as a single entity in making key decisions that impact all of its member teams.

But a lawyer representing a small apparel company that sued the league for supposedly violating the Sherman Antitrust Act argued the teams are independent actors free to enter into business contracts as they see fit.

Labor unions, including the one representing NFL players, contend a ruling in the league's favor will give it too much power at the expense of the men on the field and fans.

New Orleans Saints quarterback and union representative Drew Brees recently wrote that team owners would use a high court victory to restrict player free agency, raise prices on merchandise and stadium tickets and freeze coaches salaries. Others have suggested that a ruling for the league will lead to increased labor strife and strikes that could lead to cancelled games

[Eyes Unclouded]

I could see this one go either way. It looks like the court will side against the nfl but if they do not I wonder if this ruling could translate into fixed ticket prices or fixed contract rates etc.

[pnh102]

Ugh. Do the courts really need to waste our time getting involved in the inner operations of a private entity?

[ridesthemiles]

I would think that Brees has enough on his mind at this moment-

The NFL owners hire and fire coaches as they see fit-—just like ANY other business.

They “hire & fire” players with the trading between teams, etc. If they cannot trade a player who is out of favor-—that player can sit on the bench in uniform, and never see a moment of play.

For all the money that the NFL brings to towns all across the country- advertisers- jobs for even the lowly people parking cars— they should be able to run their business as they see fit.

There already is much too much interference from outside the box for each & every business in the country.

If someone wahts to market something with my ranch name on it—or even my name on it-—they have to pay me.

[Frank_2001]

“raise prices on merchandise and stadium tickets”

How much higher can they possibly go?;)

[I Shall Endure]

I’m not a big sports fan, so please forgive me for asking a stupid question: how come baseball has an anti-trust exemption, and football doesn’t? Has congress ever considered giving one to the NFL? If not, how come?

If someone could post some background information on this topic, it would be appreciated.

Thanks,
ISE

[hinckley buzzard]

half the nation's economy has been or is in the process of being expropriated by a rogue regime in Washington, and the Supreme Court is huffing and puffing about pro football. Great. Just great.

[seton89]

Who represents the NFL?

[seton89]

Who represents the NFL?

[scrabblehack]

What I’m not clear on is what gave rise to the suit in the first place. Did a team owner attempt to negotiate his own apparel contract? Did the NFLPA attempt the same?

I agree it is not appropriate for the court to just barge in, but there may be a good reason.

[balls]

0 is making the Constitution a joke and all the highest court in the land does is talk about football - something that has no effect whatsoever on our wellbeing. Meanwhile, we are on the verge of an uprising!

[mysterio]

Competition is the keystone of capitalism, and the NFL is acting anti-competitively. Especially where merchandising is concerned.

A lot of large corporations are allowed to ignore anti-trust laws. In my opinion, this is bad for capitalism.

[Gil4]

It’s in the article:

“The case started as a lawsuit from American Needle Inc., an Illinois based company that over the years had produced logoed clothing for several NFL teams. But a decade ago the NFL signed an exclusive contract with Reebok to cover every team. American Needle was shut out and sued saying the contract with Reebok violated antitrust laws.”

The key question is whether the NFL is one entity or 32 seperate entities.

Obviously, it has taken a long time for this to work its way through the court system. I’d be interested in knowing how lower courts have ruled (if there have been rulings, which I assume there have been.

The quote from Sotomayor echoes my thoughts on the subject (which means I’m probably way off base on the issue): “You are seeking through this ruling what you haven’t gotten from Congress: An absolute bar to an antitrust claim”.

[Clump]

That's a good question, and the answer is legally very interesting.
Baseball was treated in early cases as being not interstate commerce, and therefore not subject to anti trust laws.
The SCOTUS held that position repeatedly on baseball even though it's interstate commerce clause jurisprudence changed elsewhere.
It declined to extend it's reasoning to other sports.
Baseball therefore enjoys this special carveout in the law.