Issue: Who are the losers, the players or the owners?
Short Answer: The fans.
Reasoning: Because we have to listen to this crap, all day, every day, until this thing gets worked out. The fans aren't the losers in this situation because we may not get to watch football, bet on football, play fantasy football, etc., but because we have to listen to the players and owners tell us how sorry they are that they couldn't get a deal done. Any self-respecting fan knows that they are full of it. The players and owners know that the fans will come back whenever they decide to stop acting like children, so when they are at the negotiating table, the fans are the last thing on their minds. If this weren't true, a deal would be done already. You know it and I know it. The NFL realizes they have made billions of dollars every year because the game is so unique - there is nothing else like it in the world, and we as fans love it too much to walk away. As Mike Florio says at http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/, "The question for the league and its players — who share responsibility for this lockout no matter what they say — is whether fan anger could possibly turn to ambivalence. They don’t think it will happen." The NFL has become a victim of its own success.
Speaking of http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/, if you want to know what is really going on with this lockout, that is the place to get your information. Mike Florio, who writes most of the posts at the site, is a lawyer (formerly) and can make sense of all the legal mumbo-jumbo that is going on. I have also been trained as a lawyer (not very well, I might add), and I took a class in antitrust law, so I also have an idea of what is going on. Kinda. Antitrust law exists in this country to encourage competition and to stifle monopolies. Our government does not want any one person, company, entity, etc. to be able to keep others out of the capitalist mix. Easy example: let's say you live in a rural Iowa town (meaning you live miles and miles and miles from everything - including civilization - trust me, I've been there). Now, in this town there are only 2 gas stations - and not another around for miles (see, told ya). These 2 gas stations get together and decide since they are the only one's selling gas within a 100-mile radius, maybe they should jack up the price (yes, even higher than the $3.50 it is right now). So, they start selling gas at $8.50/gallon. This is a violation of antitrust laws. Those 2 gas stations are attempting to create a monopoly, which is illegal. Well then, what do antitrust laws have to do with the NFL labor dispute? Good question.
You see, under the Sherman Antitrust Act, unions are exempt from antitrust laws. Basically, if you are the member of a union you are allowed to collude on issues such as fair labor practices, salaries, benefits, etc. which, without a union, violates antitrust laws. You follow? The National Football League Players Association, headed by DeMaurice Smith (I'm sure you've heard his name enough over the last few weeks), is a union. They exist to make sure the players in the NFL are taken care of and treated fairly. But, if there is a union, which is exempt from antitrust laws, how can the players (which include Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning) file an antitrust lawsuit? Another good question - you must be following this fairly well so far. Well, what the players did was decertify their union. They disbanded it. The NFLPA no longer exists. So, players are free to file an antitrust lawsuit against the owners. You see, if 32 separate business entities are "colluding" to keep these innocent (yes I am being facetious) players off the field, then that is a violation of antitrust laws. Seem fishy? I agree. The players have a union to protect them, but when the union isn't getting what they want, they decertify and sue. Crap.
Since the lockout began (and even before that) players were blaming owners and owners were blaming players. My theory is the players believe that the common fan will side with them (the billionaires vs. millionaires argument), so they pretended to be negotiating the entire time, but had their eyes on litigation from the beginning. The players union (formerly) knew the owners weren't going to give them everything they wanted, so they figured they would have a better chance in a courtroom. The players were set on decertifying from the very beginning. Some may view this as a "sham" (I know I do - and almost everyone should). However, as Mike Florio explains, the owners, in the last collective bargaining agreement, gave up the right to challenge the decertification as a "sham" in certain instances. "The problem for the players [as to decertification] is that Article LVII, Section 3(a) of the CBA required them to wait six months before filing an antitrust lawsuit if they failed to file it before the expiration of the labor deal." The players didn't file before the CBA expired and they didn't wait six months after it expired - which means the owners will use the "sham" defense in court. Now, just because you and I know the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham, doesn't mean it can be proven in court. Unless the union was dumb enough to put the "sham" into writing somewhere (an e-mail, a letter, on tape, etc.), then it will actually be fairly tough for the owners to prove. If they do prove it, then the players remain locked out and the fans are stuck with their thumbs up their you-know-where while we wait for the players and owners to negotiate, on their own, a new collective bargaining agreement. And the players have already proven they are going to drive a hard bargain, maybe hard enough to where they sit out the entire season. Great.
The bright side? It's only March. I hope the players and owners aren't as dumb as we think. A deal will get done. Hopefully sooner rather than later. This is basketball season and I'm tired of these whiny gajillionaires on my television. I want to watch the kids who don't get paid (allegedly) play some basketball.
No comments:
Post a Comment