View Single Post
09-17-2004, 01:37 AM
David A. Rainer
Registered User
David A. Rainer's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Originally Posted by Smail
Also, I can't see why a contract clause between the NHL and the teams stating something like "The teams that play in the NHL, for competitivity reasons, must not spend more than x on player salaries. If a team wishes to increase their payroll over x, they can freely disassociate from the league to pursue their own venture". Besides, it's not like they won't negociate a new CBA pretty soon after re-starting".
Because irregardless of whether they can always go and form their own league, this particular league is creating a combination of at least two or more separate entites that has a restriction in place that suppresses competition in the labor market. That is all it takes. It is a black and white example of a violation of the Act. It is called price fixing and an industry does not need a monopoly on something (that is, lack of freedom of creating their own league) to be guilty of price fixing.

Just for reference sake, let me give 1 of the Sherman Act: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." (emphasis added)


A restricton on salaries has long since been determined to be a restraint on trade in the labor market and a violation of 1. And the restriction does not need to be a complete restriction (that is, wholly barring someone from participating), it need only be some sort of restriction - EVEN the tiniest of restrictions (although tiny restrictions are technically a violation, they can often be balanced with other considerations to uphold it). This is not new stuff. These cases have long since been decided about 100 years ago and are being upheld on a daily basis.

Saxon Sports Information and Research

Last edited by David A. Rainer: 09-17-2004 at 02:06 AM.
David A. Rainer is offline