Blog of law articles

The clock is ticking on the expiration of the extended collective bargaining agreement between the National Football League (NFL) and the National Football League Players Association(NFLPA). Current deadline is tonight at 11:59 p.m. USA Today has an interesting, if bare bones assessment of what could happen. My bet is on another extension. The players have signaled their willingness to talk - there has been no talk of a strike. The owners have rattled the lockout saber thereby assuming the roll of the party willing to walk, but really? This labor/management dispute plays to labor's strengths. Highly skilled athletes bargaining for more. Billionaire owners wanting to increase their guaranteed slice of the estimated 9 billion dollar golden goose that is the NFL. It does not hurt the players position that the owners want a $100% increase in their guaranteed slice off the top. This dispute plays out against the backdrop of the fans. Who will they blame if Sundays from August to February (and a few Mondays, Saturdays and Thursdays too) are devoid of action, or if the only action is by replacement players? I think thats an easy call if the owners lockout the players. Nevertheless a lockout has the same potential economic consequences for the players as a strike, and they are all adverse. No pay, no benefits, and potentially a lost season for players who have precious few years to play anyway. The owners should be gleeful the players threaten to decertify the union (actually a disclaimer of interest that would lead to decertification). It allows the owners to back off the lockout position and continue negotiations, at least at this point. Decertification likely will likely place all of this in a courtroom, a consequence which should be feared more by the defendant, because the teams, as defendants in an antitrust action have a potential dreadful downside. I think the owners should be very concerned about American Needle v. NFL, which rejected the owners argument that the league by necessity had to act jointly in marketing decisions. Yeah, that may be a simplistic analysis, but the case firmly rejected the NFL's broad interpretation of the anti-trust exemption.