From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Free Agency
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:47:37 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <BILLMS.92Oct8084027@quip.eecs.umich.edu>, billms@eecs.umich.edu (William Mangione-Smith) writes...

>In article <1992Oct7.164449.18397@walter.cray.com> dpp@cray.com (David Peterschmidt) writes:
> 
>   I still haven't figured out why the NFL (and other sports leagues) are
>   supposedly violating anti-trust laws simply because they hold drafts,
>   don't compete financially among the fanchises, etc.  It seems to me
>   that the NFL as a whole could be considered the 'company', which then
>   competes with other sports leagues for the services of the players.
> 
>John has been arguing exactly this point: the nfl effectively operates as a
>single company and teams do not compete with each other over financial
>issues.  The problem is that legally they all have independent status.
>Anti-trust laws were created to block companies from playing both sides of
>the street, i.e. claiming to be independent and in competition, and yet
>conspiring together to achieve a financial advantage through unity.  This is
>exactly what the draft does.  If the teams are indeed seperate, as their
>legal business structure currently says they are, the draft is an obvious
>attempt to restrict employment opportunities for a third party (the players)
>between supposedly competing independent businesses. 

First of all, this isn't *my* point exactly, I'm just restating the 
NFL's argument to the best of my ability.

Secondly, the courts recognize a sports league as a legal entity.  
Rules that apply to competing business in manufacturing, for example, 
do not apply to sports leagues.  I might point out that the decision 
in McNeil vs NFL case didn't say that the NFL cannot restrict player 
movement.  It just said that Plan-B was *too* restrictive.

>I'm not a lawyer.  But I've read on this issue a bit, and I've never heard a
>lawyer claim that the draft was legal on its own, though I've see several say
>that it is clearly illegal.  The collective bargaining agreement has
>protected the nfl so far, but say so long to that.

This is not true.  The courts have upheld player drafts in several 
other leagues:  NBA, MLB.

>The league wants it both ways, teams are seperate financial entities and can
>act together when they want.  Can you imagine what would happen if we were
>back to letting all industries operate this way?  Nothing new would start.
>Everybody in the game sets the price high.  Somebody new, and small, tries to
>undercut them and they drop the price to drive the new guy out.  Then it gets
>jacked up again.  The nfl has got to decide which way they want to play the
>game.

I'm sorry but there is just no way an analogy to industrial businesses 
can hold up.  The NFL's product is *entertainment*, not cars.  Lets 
examine your analogy.  Who do you want the little guy to be?  Green 
Bay, Tampa Bay?  Let's say Green Bay.  The big guy is the 49ers.  Does 
San Francisco benefit by driving Green Bay out of the league?  No.  In 
fact, the draft - which you are claiming is a violation of anti-trust 
laws - *helps* Green Bay stay in business.

JGH
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro