Retired players file antitrust suit against NFL

[tazinib1]

Anything to get the ball rolling is good with me

 

Four retired NFL players, including Hall of Fame defensive end I'M A TOOL Eller and Pro Bowl running back Priest Holmes, filed a federal class action, antitrust lawsuit against the NFL on Monday seeking to end the current lockout.

 

Eller v. NFL, obtained by Yahoo! Sports, is similar to the current Brady, et al v. NFL. However, it is based on a potentially clever legal maneuver that could box the league into a corner and prove a significant development in ending pro football’s nearly month-long labor impasse.

 

The former players’ suit also covers draft-eligible prospects, who aren’t represented by the NFL Players Association under the previous collective bargaining agreement. As such, these plaintiffs could potentially avoid one of the league’s chief counterarguments against the Brady lawsuit – that the union illegally decertified.

AdChoices

 

“The owners say the union has unlawfully decertified and the union should be ordered to reconstitute and forced to sit at the bargaining table,” lead attorney Michael Hausfeld of the Washington D.C.-based Hausfeld LLC told Y! Sports. “If you look at the last CBA, it represents the rookies that have been drafted and the rookies who have begun negotiating with teams.”

 

Therefore, college players awaiting next month’s draft are not represented by the union and can’t be faulted for its decertification. However they are, Hausfeld argues, being affected by the lockout.

 

“These players have an antitrust claim,” Hausfeld said. “They’ve essentially staked the pursuit of a career on being eligible for the NFL.

 

“The owners have shut down their potential employees through a concerted boycott,” Hausfeld continued. “[The suit is] going to avoid the main thrust of the owners’ defense and their argument that the matter should be settled by the [National Labor Relations Board] not in the courts.”

 

The NFL said its “attorneys have not had an opportunity to review” the suit, which was filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The NFLPA was made aware of the suit prior to its filing, according to Hausfeld. It too has yet to respond with comment.

 

Hausfeld has made a career out of winning complicated lawsuits – that includes earning reparations for Holocaust survivors from Swiss banks. His firm is currently one of the lead councils in a suit filed by former college athletes such as Ed O’Bannon and Oscar Robertson against the NCAA for the unlawful use of their likenesses.

 

In the Eller case, Hausfeld believes a crack has been found in the NFL’s armor.

 

“How silly is it to have a draft in April and then say, congratulations, you’re locked out?” he asked.

 

By using the window between now and the start of the NFL draft on April 28, the NFL is exposed to this kind of argument.

 

The NFL, Hausfeld said, would have to work out a deal with the NFLPA or risk taking on an antitrust case without its top counterarguments. If the league were to lose, it would risk the basic structures of its business – the salary cap, the draft, free agency and so forth. It would be better off agreeing to a deal.

 

“We see something different,” Hausfeld said. “[The NFL has] created more of a mess for themselves. If we can end the lockout and there is no union then they’re going to individually negotiate with every player and former player.

 

“This is basically the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. Hopefully it forces everyone to the table.”

 

That remains to be seen. Predicting how any lawsuit, let alone complicated antitrust arguments, will go is fruitless. The NFL has plenty of lawyers also.

 

For fans eager for any kind of solution or forced movement on the labor impasse though, this unexpected legal challenge is, at the very least, a potential positive.

 

ETA: @ C.A.R.L being added to the word filter. Whats up with that????

Edited March 29, 2011 by tazinib1

[Jackass]

I'M A TOOL

[Bronco Billy]

It disturbs me to no end that players reap the benefits of the monopolistic status of the NFL, which are vast, and then turn around and use it as a tool by which they file suits against the league. Which is it, guys? Do you enjoy the hugh paychecks, the great pension, the health care, and all the perks that go with the status of being a NFL player - including endorsement opportunities - afforded to you because the NFL is a monopoly; or do you want all that to go away so that you can wreck the league by making it MLB II?

[Square]

It disturbs me to no end that players reap the benefits of the monopolistic status of the NFL, which are vast, and then turn around and use it as a tool by which they file suits against the league. Which is it, guys? Do you enjoy the hugh paychecks, the great pension, the health care, and all the perks that go with the status of being a NFL player - including endorsement opportunities - afforded to you because the NFL is a monopoly; or do you want all that to go away so that you can wreck the league by making it MLB II?

So the reason the monopoly exists is because the owners have to collectively bargain with the players. The players have come to the conclusion that the owners were not doing that in good faith so they are seeking a legal remedy in the justice system. We all know whose side you come down on with all this.

 

I think reasonable people can at least agree there are some pretty evident things that show that both sides don't trust the other and a case can be made that the owners weren't actually acting in good faith. The 18 game season ploy (while claiming player safety), the lower percentage of revenue split, along with a last minute "deal" that would lock the players out of shared revenue for future years (basically changing the way the entire money of the league works at noon of the last day) all could make that case. You're smarter than inferring that filing a law suit against the league for anti-trust issues means that the players want to break the monopoly. Your complaining about legal recourse just comes off as bitter. I've read enough of your rants about players and their wasted talent, money, and opportunities. Not sure why, but it seems like the lockout has you posting more than ever. Did the lockout really strike a cord with you or have you really been this one sided towards owners?

 

Personally I don't care if the players buy mutual funds or Cristal. I think the owners are asking for far too much and I don't blame the players for trying to defend their slice of the pie. If I worked at GE and had one of the best years ever (during one of the worst economies in 30 years) I'd want more info before I worked extra hours or took a pay cut. If my boss asked for both, I'd probably quit. Luckily they don't have a monopoly so I have options. Professional football players don't so into the courts they go. Seems pretty rational to me.

[detlef]

It disturbs me to no end that players reap the benefits of the monopolistic status of the NFL, which are vast, and then turn around and use it as a tool by which they file suits against the league. Which is it, guys? Do you enjoy the hugh paychecks, the great pension, the health care, and all the perks that go with the status of being a NFL player - including endorsement opportunities - afforded to you because the NFL is a monopoly; or do you want all that to go away so that you can wreck the league by making it MLB II?

You keep saying this like the monopoly is as good for players as it is for owners. Certainly, there would be no advantage for the owners if there was competition in pro football and, yes, there are also advantages that the specific players associated with the NFL enjoy as a result of the monopoly. Basically, this monopoly means that league has higher revenues, so their share of that revenue goes up.

 

However, from a broader standpoint, one could argue that, were there more leagues, the total amount of pie to split would be greater. It's not like two pro leagues would each be splitting a cut of the 9 Billion the NFL makes, it would likely be more like two leagues each splitting 12 or 13. That, over all, there would be more jobs for football players which means longer careers for all involved. Less guys would be cut after 1 or 2 years because there would be a higher demand for people with their skill set. There would be more cities with franchises, so more options of places to live. Again, I do think this would be a knock on the top end of what you could earn because neither league would be as profitable as the NFL, so neither league may want to or even be able to pony up the really high contracts. However, it does seem like it would be a boon for lower tiered players.

 

In that case, a situation with two leagues competing in the US could have a few advantages for the players.

 

It has no advantages what-so-ever for the owners.

[Bronco Billy]

However, from a broader standpoint, one could argue that, were there more leagues, the total amount of pie to split would be greater. It's not like two pro leagues would each be splitting a cut of the 9 Billion the NFL makes, it would likely be more like two leagues each splitting 12 or 13.

 

I couldn't disagree wiht you more. I submit the CFL, AFL, and any other proFL and its ability to generate revenues in competition with the NFL as my evidence.

 

Adding twice as much product at half the quality (or worse) would seem to me to promote a decrease in overall revenues. The group of players you would be adding for another pro league would all be players who couldn't make current pro squads. That dilutes the product well beyond only cutting the quality in half.

 

That's why I believe the players are most definitely biting the hand that feeds them.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[SEC=UGA]

Nobody is disllowing another gorup from starting their own Football League. If I really wanted to, I could go out tomorrow and start the SECFL and the NFL, congress, nor the president himself could stop me. The reason the NFL has these provisions to get around the Anti-trust laws is because NO ONE in their right mind is going to try and put together a competing football league, it would be financial suicide. So, in order to stall lawsuits with regard to everything from merchandising rights to employment issues a caveat was drawn specifically for the NFL to be able to skirt anti-trust laws.

[MikesVikes]

It disturbs me to no end that players reap the benefits of the monopolistic status of the NFL, which are vast, and then turn around and use it as a tool by which they file suits against the league. Which is it, guys? Do you enjoy the hugh paychecks, the great pension, the health care, and all the perks that go with the status of being a NFL player - including endorsement opportunities - afforded to you because the NFL is a monopoly; or do you want all that to go away so that you can wreck the league by making it MLB II?

 

 

It disturbs you that retired players don't want their pensions or health benefits to end during a lockout?

[Bronco Billy]

It disturbs you that retired players don't want their pensions or health benefits to end during a lockout?

 

I missed the part in the article where it states that the retired players are not receiving their pensions or benefits, and therefore that is why the suit was filed. Perhaps you could point it out for me?

[MikesVikes]

I missed the part in the article where it states that the retired players are not receiving their pensions or benefits, and therefore that is why the suit was filed. Perhaps you could point it out for me?

There might be a few articles on the subject. I saw it in my local paper and this is the first link that came up on a search.

 

link

 

MINNEAPOLIS -- Four former NFL players, including Hall of Fame defensive end Eller, sued the NFL on Monday in hopes of joining current players in their antitrust fight against the league.

 

Eller, three-time All-Pro running back Priest Holmes and ex-players Obafemi Ayanbadejo and Ryan Collins are listed as plaintiffs in the 44-page complaint filed in federal court in Minneapolis and obtained by The Associated Press. It seeks class-action status on behalf of all former players.

 

The retirees want the NFL lockout lifted to ensure their pensions and health benefits remain funded. According to the lawsuit, those benefits will end if a collective bargaining agreement is not renewed by next March 11 -- a year after the last one expired.The NFL offers retirement, disability and death benefits, with each program subsidized by the 32 teams. The benefits can be terminated if no CBA is in effect for more than a year, the lawsuit says.

 

 

Relive the NFL season in HD with NFL Game Rewind. Sign up now to get full access to the season archives.

The case was assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in St. Paul, Minn., where U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson is scheduled to hold an April 6 hearing on a request by current players to immediately halt the lockout.

 

Shawn Stuckey, an attorney for the players, said he intends to ask the court to combine the retirees' lawsuit with the antitrust suit filed by Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and others.

 

"We hope that we can be a part of that hearing. For the sake of judicial economy, it would help to streamline things to make sure you get all parties involved at the same table at the same hearing at the same time," Stuckey said.

 

He added: "If we can't get that, we want to give the retired players a voice."

 

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in email that league attorneys had not yet had an opportunity to review the lawsuit and declined to comment.

 

Stuckey, a former linebacker with New England and Tampa Bay, said he's been in "constant contact" with the attorneys representing the current players.

 

"We thought the best way to remain in solidarity with all the players was to give everyone a voice at the table," Stuckey said in a phone interview. "We wanted to make sure that we're consistent with the goals of all NFL players. We want everyone to be on the same page. We hope that our efforts from this point forth remain consistent."

 

Eller, who was part of Minnesota's famed Purple People Eaters defensive line, is in the suit to represent the Hall of Famers. Eller was inducted in 2004.

 

Holmes, the AP's Offensive Player of the Year in 2002 with Kansas City, and Ayanbadejo, a teammate of his in Baltimore on the Super Bowl champion team in the 2000 season, are plaintiffs to represent retirees with vested pensions.

 

Collins, a tight end with Baltimore and Cleveland and was on Minnesota's practice squad in 1998, is on the suit to represent non-vested former players.

 

Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

Edited March 29, 2011 by MikesVikes

[Bronco Billy]

The retirees want the NFL lockout lifted to ensure their pensions and health benefits remain funded. According to the lawsuit, those benefits will end if a collective bargaining agreement is not renewed by next March 11 -- a year after the last one expired.

 

So what you have posted is that the retirees haven't lost one thing and won't risk losing anything for another year. So they are not being damaged in any way right now. I don't know about where the suit is filed, but in CO you can't bring a suit against someone for damages that have not occurred.

[detlef]

I couldn't disagree wiht you more. I submit the CFL, AFL, and any other proFL and its ability to generate revenues in competition with the NFL as my evidence.

 

Adding twice as much product at half the quality (or worse) would seem to me to promote a decrease in overall revenues. The group of players you would be adding for another pro league would all be players who couldn't make current pro squads. That dilutes the product well beyond only cutting the quality in half.

 

That's why I believe the players are most definitely biting the hand that feeds them.

Actually, the fact that any league at all has ever been able to exist in addition to the NFL, like Arena League or the CFL means that pie is, to some degree, larger with the addition of other leagues. I specifically stated that a second league would not mean double revenues rather that there are some marginal buyers who would embrace another league enough to mean that two leagues would not simply have to divide up the $9 Billion the NFL currently brings in. That they'd be dividing up a larger pie, even if each of their shares of that pie was not as big as what the current pie is.

 

My point is simply this, that the monopoly is 100% a boon for the owners and is both a boon and not a boon for the players. Again, "the players" include not only guys like Tom Brady and Drew Brees, but also dudes who are hanging to roster spots for dear life. The difference between a guy who can make a pro squad and a guy who can't sometimes does not even exist. Because that is often the same guy depending on the year. So, if there were two viable leagues, each competing for players, each of those leagues would have to be less choosy and these guys at the bottom rung would have an easier time keeping their jobs.

 

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have it completely figured out. None of us do.

 

This is basically how the argument has gone.

 

You: It is exactly like this.

Me: Well, not exactly, it's sort of like that, part of it is like that, but there's just too much gray area for us to know. And you're also not taking "X" into account.

You: No, it's exactly like this and anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool or hates America.

Me; How the hell do you or any of us know? There are simply too many sides to the story.

You: I know. I always know. I know law, I know business, and I know the inner workings of all the NFL franchises.

 

...repeat.

Edited March 30, 2011 by detlef

[MikesVikes]

So what you have posted is that the retirees haven't lost one thing and won't risk losing anything for another year. So they are not being damaged in any way right now. I don't know about where the suit is filed, but in CO you can't bring a suit against someone for damages that have not occurred.

 

I have to be completely honest here. I'm not hanging on every word that I hear on either side. I don't even think it helps one way or the other to choose sides. They just all have to get their sh** together and come back to play. The players and owners will eventually return to action and act like nothing happened. The fans will be asked to do the same. We've been there before. I'll let the pissing and moaning up to the players and owners.

[Bronco Billy]

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have it completely figured out. None of us do.

 

Well, good then. Let's discuss flowers & knitting instead.

 

 

This is basically how the argument has gone.

 

You: It is exactly like this.

Me: Well, not exactly, it's sort of like that, part of it is like that, but there's just too much gray area for us to know. And you're also not taking "X" into account.

You: No, it's exactly like this and anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool or hates America.

Me; How the hell do you or any of us know? There are simply too many sides to the story.

You: I know. I always know. I know law, I know business, and I know the inner workings of all the NFL franchises.

 

...repeat.

 

 

You forgot the part where you go into drama queen victim mode. Some of us here have acquired significant knowledge and experience through various means as they have passed through their lives - knowledge about running businesses, about law, about economics. So is everyone supposed to ignore all of that so they can argue on your level - you freely admit you haven't figured this out.

 

There's one hell of a lot more to running a multi-billion dollar business than sitting on your ass and collecting millions. The owners' position in this is hardly one of "all benefits" as you stated above (sorry - I misquoted you, which I'm sure you'll get butthurt about. You said 100% boon).

Edited March 31, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

Well, good then. Let's discuss flowers & knitting instead.

I just want to make sure I get what you're saying. If none of us knows exactly what is going on, then there's no sense in debating or discussing it?

 

That's what you just said. If none of us have this thing completely figured out, then we might as well talk about flowers and knitting.

 

I could say more, but there's really no point. You've done a fine enough job illustrating what I was accusing you of right there. Because there's one thing that all of us have in common here, whether we admit it or not. None of us has all the facts and expertise to make basically all the claims you've made in this discussion. It's just that the rest of us understand that reality. You don't.

[detlef]

There's one hell of a lot more to running a multi-billion dollar business than sitting on your ass and collecting millions. The owners' position in this is hardly one of "all benefits" as you stated above (sorry - I misquoted you, which I'm sure you'll get butthurt about. You said 100% boon).

And for a guy who knows everything, you should work on reading comprehension.

 

My point about 100% boon is that there is no upside for the owners if they break up the monopoly. To them, there is only upside to the current monopoly state. The players, on the other hand, reap some benefit from the current state but would also reap benefits from a competing league. That is really it.

 

And, to be clear, I'm not even certain of what the monopoly issue is that is being attacked in the courts. That is, the specific details of the case. Whether it's barriers of entry to another league or how the teams are interacting with the players or something else.

 

I'm just not as ready as you are to assume that the players are enjoying whatever form of monopoly that is in question to the extent that the owners are. That they couldn't, actually, be better off were that situation to change. Which, by the way, it is rather safe to assume since they're taking them to court over the very same.

 

But, that's what it comes down to, isn't it? For a man in business, there is no cap at which he needs to simply be happy with what he's got and not look to improve his situation. However, for a man employed, you very much seem to think that he has a price that should make him shut up and not do the same. So, regardless of whether the players think whatever form of monopoly that the NFL enjoys stands in the way of them maximizing their earning potential, they should be cool with it because they're still getting paid plenty. That's basically what you're saying, right? That if you're really well paid and try to do better, you're a Bolshevik?

 

And further, according to you, they are very much not partners to the extent that they should expect to understand why the owners claim they need to take a bigger cut. However, they're very much partners to the extent that they need to sacrifice whatever gains they could realize by a more open market because doing so is for the good of their employer with whom they share revenues. Seems like a rather convenient distinction.

Edited March 31, 2011 by detlef