View Single Post
Old
09-16-2004, 10:16 PM
  #38
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,248
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
Uniforms? Yes. Signage? Yes. Wages? An emphatic NO. Uniforms and signage do not affect competition, in this case competition in the labor market, so a franchisor can stipulate this all it wants in the franchise agreement. Stipulating a given wage in the franchise agreement reduces the level of competition in the labor market (basically, when every franchise offers the same wage, or offers a wage up to a certain level, the competition in the labor market is reduced because there is an artificial restriction on the wages). This is absolutely and without a doubt a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. You and I can think of all kinds of different ways of forming agreements to provide a single mandated wage to the players, but every agreement you can think of, as long as it is done without a CBA and involved multiple legal entities is without a doubt going to be illegal under the Sherman Act.

Providing guidelines for the use of uniforms and signs might seem no different than providing guidelines for the payment of wages, but legally, it most certainly is different.
I'm saying the teams have full control over how much they want to pay to whoever they want to pay. The franchisor takes no part in salary negotiations, sets no levels individual salaries. Those things are entirely up to the players and teams to work out. Let the teams fight each other for players. Lets teams spend as much as they want. However teams must the criteria to enter the Stanley Cup, that being a total salary lower than X. Above X, the teams can do what they like, arrange the own comp, enter a new NHL Megabucks comp etc.

For example company could run a racing car circuit where teams were only allowed to spend $1m/y.

me2 is offline