View Single Post
Old
12-25-2012, 02:43 PM
  #60
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
There are numerous legal precendents in this case:

Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. is perhaps the most direct and notable. The court has held that labor law provides a non-statutory exemption from anti-trust laws.
Brown v. Pro Football has little to do with the current situation. It just extended the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption to cover terms imposed after an Impasse.

The timeline of NFL cases:

Mackey v NFL (1976): threw out the Rozelle rule, ruling it was not the product of bona fide armís-length collective bargaining. It set out the three prong test used to determine the extent of the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption.

1) the restraint on trade must primarily affect only the parties to the collective bargaining agreement;
2) the agreement must concern a mandatory subject of collective bargaining; and
3) the agreement must be the product of bona fide armís-length bargaining.

Powell v NFL (1989): held that the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption still holds after the expiration of a CBA, even after an Impasse was declared. It was after Powell that the NFLPA disclaimed and began the McNeil case.

McNiel v NFL (1992): Judge Doty rules that the NFL is no longer protected by the Non-Statutory Exemption and allows a jury trial. Jury awards damages.

Brown v Pro Football (1996): Upholds that the Non Statutory Exemption applies to terms imposed after an Impasse.

Of course, none of these precedents -except Judge Doty's trial court ruling are applicable if the NHLPA disclaims/decertifies.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote