From about 1986 to 1988 the baseball owners colluded to inhibit free agency. A series of arbitration hearings found collution and the M.L.B. paid a lot of money to the players to settle the suit.
Oddly enough, ESPN’s show Pardon the Interruption just had a legal analyst on who feels that the NFL’s defense is a lock. Apparently, the CBA cannot be challenged under anti-trust laws, and, according to this analyst (I didn’t catch the name), the age provision was included in the most recent CBA.
I disagree with minty on a few points:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
A very few practices are held to be “per se unreasonable.” However, these practices are limited to agreements among competitors. Clarett is not in competition with the NFL–he is not, after all, a football team or league, and the NFL is not a football player. Because Clarett and the NFL are not in competition with each other, there is no obvious basis for his claim of a per se violation.
[/quote[
Clarett’s argument is that the teams are colluding via the mechanism of the league. The fact that he’s not in competition with them is inapposite; they’re allegedly colluding improperly and he’s allegedly being harmed; regardless of the fact that he’s not a competitor to the colluders; as long as he’s injured he’s got standing.
Clarett makes no claim that the NFL’s competitors are being harmed; he’s saying (or rather implying) that the collusion amongst the teams is injuring one of them (the one that would otherwise draft him and would therefore get the benefit of revenues he brings in). He doesn’t have to prove that the rule is harmful to the NFL’s competitors but rather that it is harmful to competition in the industry in which the NFL’s constituents participate – the provision of professional football.
–Cliffy
My apologies, I clearly screwed up by focusing on the “vertical” restraint (i.e., a restraint between upstream and downstream participants in the market) between the NFL and Clarett instead of recognizing that the anticompetitive agreement he’s claiming is between and among the teams.
But “collusion” is not a per se violation of antitrust law. Hell, every business agreement is collusion of some sort or another. Pretty much the only restraints of trade that are per se illegal are “horizontal” restraints (i.e., agreements among competitors) to fix prices, bid rigging, customer allocation, and territorial allocation. Clarett’s case does not implicate any of those per se rules, so his claims will certainly be judged under the rule of reason. That is, he will have to show that the practice unreasonably restrains trade, comparing both the positive effects of the practice and any anticompetitive effects.
Rule of thumb: Courts do not let plaintiffs win under rule of reason analysis.
It’s not so obvious to me. Clarett himself and any other fresh high school graduates are the consumers who are being harmed by the alleged illegal restraint. Agreeing to boycott a class seems directly analogous to the illegal agreements you listed.
I’m not conviced it isn’t a boycott, but we’ve reached the end of my understanding of antitrust so I’m content to sit and wait for a ruling on the matter.
–Cliffy
Apparently there was a Supreme Court decision a few years back that held (at least, the legal analyst mentioned above contends so; another talking head disagreed) that issues which are subject to a collective bargaining agreement are exempt from the Clayton and Sherman Acts. Thus, whether the NFLPA and the NFL actually formally agreed to an age restriction or not is irrelevant; the only issue is whether an age restriction would be an issue subject to a CBA, and that question seems clear (yes).
The NFL’s second line of defense is simple: assuming an age restriction is an issue which is subject to antitrust law, such a rule would not be an UNREASONABLE restraint of trade. It can be justified by concern for the physical and emotional preparedness of the youngsters for grueling NFL play. And in this I think they’re right. Of course it also protects union members’ jobs and assists the NFL’s unpaid minor league, the colleges, in developing players for them without the NFL having to pay for their training. So it’s obviously self-serving as well.
[Incredibly pedantic and trivial nitpick]Actually, the damages were not only trebled, but there was interest added, so the total damages came out to $3.76. A lawyer I used to work for was involved in the litigation and had a framed copy of the check in his office.[/nitpick]