So, the NFL Rams have decided to move from St. Louis to Los Angeles. They apparently prefer California to Missouri.
According to this NBC report, the Rams are trying to get their new player recruits to sign contracts stating that the laws of Missouri, and not those of California, will govern the relationship between the team and its players.
It will probably surprise no-one to learn that Missouri labor laws are more employer-friendly, and less generous to employees in areas like workers comp, than the laws of California.
The GQ here is not “Are NFL owners tone-deaf, selfish, greedy assholes?”
The GQ is: would this clause actually be legally enforceable? That is, can you require an employee who will work (or play) for a team called the Los Angeles Rams, will train in Los Angeles, play half his games in Los Angeles, etc. etc., to work under the labor laws of Missouri?
Is there a way to legally make this work, for example, by having the company that actually owns the team remain in Missouri, even while the team itself is in California?
Are there, in such cases, any blanket rules covering how and where laws like workers comp function for people who work in more than one state? That is, if you work in multiple states, are you only covered by the workers comp laws of your company’s home state, or does your mere presence as an employee performing work duties in another state trigger coverage by the laws of that state?
I’ve read a few articles on this, and they all say that the NFL Players’ Association is telling its players and their agents not to agree to this clause. This suggests to me that they believe that the clause itself is actually legal and enforceable.
[P.S., if mods feel that this is better in The Game Room, feel free to move it. I figured, though, that while it’s about a sporting team, the principle might apply to other areas of work.]