Legal minds: Anti-trust question

[Bronco Billy]

I have seen where the UFL has moved its draft up to May 2, 2011 in order to make moves on NFL UDFAs before NFL teams could sign them. This would also provide a source of employment in professional football for any currently unsigned NFL players (FAs). I also understand that contracts in the UFL are substantially smaller than even the minimum NFL contracts (it is my understanding that $50K is the norm).

 

Does this consitute competition for the same player base with the NFL? Looking for legal opinions as to how an anti-trust suit stands if this is the case with the UFL (as well as the existence of the CFL).

[detlef]

According to one article I found, there could be a hurdle for the NFL declaring that the UFL provides a suitable alternative for players to seek employment. The UFL requires a buy-out of $150K if a player wants to leave and find employment in the NFL (or I would imagine, any other league). Unless these players are similarly protected by the teams having to buy them out if they cut them (like it is with College coaches who have to pay a bunch of money to bolt for another school but also get paid a bunch of money if they get fired), then players could argue that the league doesn't provide a suitable alternative. That the terms of employment are too one sided in favor of the UFL.

 

Just a theory, of course. Mind you, I am aware of businesses going after people who left them for a competitor on some grounds and these people were not protected from termination, so there's that. I don't know enough about that situation to say whether or not it is close enough to what the UFL is imposing on it's employees.

 

That site also says the UFL would threaten suit against the NFL but I don't think that really pertains to your question.

 

As far as the CFL is concerned, I would think that anti-trust would only pertain to other options within the country. Sure, Canada is closer than other countries, but that would seem to open a can of worms. Like someone proving that there's a company doing the same thing in Finland as a way to prove that there's open competition in their field.

Edited May 2, 2011 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

As far as the CFL is concerned, I would think that anti-trust would only pertain to other options within the country. Sure, Canada is closer than other countries, but that would seem to open a can of worms. Like someone proving that there's a company doing the same thing in Finland as a way to prove that there's open competition in their field.

 

That sounds plausible since companies existing and doing business outside of the US would not fall under US jurisdiction.

 

Anyway, curiosity about AFL still open and I'm hoping someone comes up with a good explanation either way.