http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100208/zirin_tittle The NFL is going to the Supreme Court to decide if they can have monopoly powers over the teams, players and every thing concerning the league. This Supreme Court sides with big business at every case, so the likely will green light the power. The league will be able to move franchises, decide ticket prices, and control selling of merchandise. The players are already getting ready to strike. The NFL might change a lot in the near future.
That would totally suck.
Interesting article, although it seems to be saying that if the Court decides the NFL is a single entity, that it can walk away from all its current legal and contractual obligations.
I can see that the league would have the advantages of a monopoly going forward, but could a team really just walk away from a long-term stadium lease, negotiated in good faith, if this ruling passes?
For that matter, how much would this really change things? Even if the league is protected as a monopoly, as long as each team owner wants to win, there will be incentive to try to out-compete (and therefore, out-spend) the other owners. The players union already collectively negotiates with the owners for its contract.
As for the merchandising deals like the one that started this in motion, would American Needle be any happier if Reebok had 32 exclusive contracts instead of just 1? Would it bring prices down if one company made hats for the Chiefs, and Reebok had rights to the other 31?
As usual, a poorly written article about an important legal concept. Not one single ounce of discussion about the legal debate itself (why are they asserting they can say they are a single entity, what part of the US anti-trust law is involved, what are the contrary arguments, and how have the lower courts ruled on the subject). Also, all that hyperbole about walking away from individual agreements is so much nonsense. It doesn’t get to say “NFL Single Entity” as a defense to signatures on documents; it simply means that third parties can’t insist that the teams be allowed to compete among themselves for things.
I hate articles like that. Sadly, as a former attorney, I know many people’s view of the law is about as nuanced. 
Oh, and you can blame MLS for that “single entity” crap. They organized themselves that way, and I knew right then and there if they were successful enough, larger leagues would try to take that mantle on for themselves.
Baseball has a monopoly, so it is not without precedent.
Baseball’s exemption from the anti-trust laws is established by act of Congress, and has nothing to do with “single entity”.
so, The NFL wants to be a monopoly too.
And this statement is relevant to the discussion I engaged in exactly how?? 
I made no statement saying it was about becoming an entity. It is what the NFL wants. The fun will be how fans will tolerate a strike.
Any chance you’d be interested in educating the ignorant on any of this?
National Football League goes after big game in landmark American Needle antitrust case - ESPN This whole mess came from American Needle a company that makes NFL caps and other clothing items.
The Roberts Court is very one sided, pro corporations. This is a great opportunity for the NFL to take advantage of it. It is surprising that the court wants this case. But they decided to take it. They will be on the NFLs side without a doubt. Prediction 5 to 4.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-01-26/nfl-heads-toward-labor-showdown Update article. A lockout is very likely.