Posted on 09/23/2003 11:16:45 AM PDT by rftc
Suspended Ohio State tailback Maurice Clarett sued the National Football League today in an historic attempt to gain entry into the league.
Under the current rules, Clarett is not eligible for entry until 2005.
Becasue the NFL( already been found in court to be a monopoly) is FORBIDDING him to have the chance. No one is going to argue that he would not be drafted. No one is going to argue that he would not make an NFL roster. The only arguement the NFL can use is that they have the right to prevent a grown man to earn a living as a player, when he OBVIOUSLY would be a player if this artificially placed barrier did not exist.
So you are NOW saying that he would make a team, injured or not. But a grown man is not allowed to do such by the NFL. You are making my arguement for me.
Want some syrup with that waffle?
Also, a bit of book learning certainly couldn't hurt. There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that he is being scouted for Bowdoin.
1. In my opinion, the NFL's "three years out of high school" regulation cannot stand up under legal scrutiny. The problem here is that the regulation does not accurately correlate to any rationale they might present (the safety of a young player, for example). If a young kid misses two years of school due to illness or something like that (or because he is just not very smart at all), then he may be finishing high school at the age of 19. According to the NFL's rules, this kid would not be able to play in the NFL until he is 22 years old, which is two years later than other "normal" players would be eligible. Conversely, a bright young kid who was somehow able to finish high school by the age of 12 would be eligible to play in the NFL at the age of 15.
2. Any terms of the league's collective bargaining agreement would be irrelevant in this case, since the CBA clearly cannot apply to players who are not members of the NFL Players' Association.
3. There are actually two separate issues here, related to the same case -- a.) whether the NFL's restrictions represent restraint of trade from Clarett's perspective, and b.) whether the NFL's restrictions represent a restraint of trade from any one team's perspective. Clarett's best legal strategy here is to make the case that an individual NFL team should at least have the option to draft him.
4. In this case, the NFL should not be considered an "employer" in any sense. Individual teams are employers -- the league itself is not. The only evidence you would need to confirm this would be a player's income tax return. The teams themselves pay the players, as well as any of the costs associated with paying them (FICA taxes and other payroll taxes, for example). The NFL isn't exactly a "franchise" company like McDonald's, either -- it actually functions more like a "pro football cartel" than anything else.
5. Anyone who is certain that the U.S. courts would side with the NFL in this case should go back and do some research on the infamous "collusion" case involving a bunch of Major League Baseball players in the 1980s who successfully sued MLB on the grounds that a group of owners conspired to refuse to tend offers to them when they were free agents. Interestingly, this represents an interesting potential future legal action against the NFL if Clarett is actually declared eligible for the draft but is not selected.
6. Regarding #5, he would never go undrafted anyway -- Al Davis would select him.
They are also a collection of individual businesses operating as a monopoly and unlike baseball, they have no antitrust exemption. Clarett will win this one.
Semi private. they became so when TAX dollors were used to build the many stadiums across this land.
Why does the NFL have the right to illegally restrain trade in a way no other business is alllowed to do. Why are all of the employers in the NFL allowed to make rules that other groups of employees are not allowed to make. All of the banks couldn't agree to only hire people who are X age, and all agree to pay a minimum of X. Why should we allow the NFL to operate under special rules?
Yes, I did say there were exceptions in SS. The NFL should have exceptions also and they can make one for Clarett if they want. But, they should not be forced to change their own rules and have to make the exception the rule. If the NFL is forced to not have a minimum age requirement, then the government should not have a minimum age requirement either. Is the government the only American institution that is allowed to have minimum age requirements? Either they are legal or they are not. The government should not be above the law.
Suppose for a minute that you as an 18 year old want to earn a living as an electrician. You have studied electronics all your life, played around with wiring, etc. and you are better at wiring schematics than any other 18 year-old, or even 25 year-old electrician for that matter. The only problem is: all of the construction firms, builders, maintenance companies, etc. that hire electricians are required to deal only with certified, union electricians and you don't have your union card. Furthermore, to get a union card requires a two-year apprenticeship and then a one-year internship, so you can't get a job as a fully certified electrician for three years. It has nothing to do with your rights and has everything to do with entry requirements.
As long as he passes the physical and drug tests just like any other athlete..
AND as long as he meets the eligibility requirement of THREE YEARS OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL "julst like any other athlete."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.