Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 04:19 PM
Join Date: Jul 2011
Originally Posted by
Well that's a pretty damn good explanation to what labour laws.
How does that relate to hockey? Same exemption? What about RFA status, does that not play a role?
Thanks for the info, I was fully unaware! Kodos!
I cannot claim to be anywhere near an expert on the topic. But the main labour laws which MLB was given an exemption were the anti-trust laws in the US. There is a long history of law suits in MLB that go back to late 1800's even. Many of the law suits were centered around the restrictions on players' freedoms that owners implemented to keep salaries down, and to hold onto players (or to sell them off c.f. Babe Ruth), and to fight off rival leagues (AL vs NL).
At the time MLB was the only truly professional league, but I believe the other sport leagues were given equivalent status once they come into the scene.
I think the topics of RFA status, and duration until UFA status, are essentially the restrictions that players collectively give up in order to have the collective benefits of a stable league - which is presumably supposed to be higher salaries - but that could be debatable...
Curt Flood is a very interesting case study. I believe he sat out a year following his trade to Phillies, in protest. He eventually won his lawsuit, and achieved free agent position. I don't think he played much longer after that.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by GoodHockey