Why is that sports labor disputes frequently lead to the players union decertifying? What is the legal advantage thus conferred, and under what circumstances does it outweigh the considerations that led the players to form a union in the first place?
Once the labour union is decertified, the league becomes a monopoly collusion between a group of owners to fix the price of contracted workers. Price fixing is an anti-trust violation. Independent companies or teams A, B, and C cannot collude to set a price, or to say “I will not compete against you for that resource.” Drafts, salary caps, exclusive rights and refusal to poach others’ players are all illegal. Walmart and Target or ATT and Verizon cannot get together to say “I will get exclusive sales of iPhones, and you take exclusive sale of Blackberries and Nokia, and we will not offer any contracts below $50/month.”
When it’s a union, the players have all collectively agreed to the arrangment with the owners, so whatever procedures used to allocate the players have been agreed to by one party - the union.
IIRC, the special exemption to anti-trust and price-fxing applies in the USA only as long as the athletes have the protection of a union group to demand better pay.
Yeah, they could go play for the Podunk semi-pro league (or maybe they can’t?) but when one group effectively controls real pro basketball, they are effectively a monopoly. When multiple independedent groups collude on price or carve up the market, it is price fixing.
If the owners don’t want a free-for-all no limits player market, they must come to an agreement with a player union. Otherwise, they will get a court decision (likely) telling them they CANNOT make any arrangements with other teams to limit player pay or mobility or individual bargaining rights, and cannot impose restrictive clauses on mobility.
I’m not a lawyer, but I do read sports magazines. Generally they decertify when there is a lockout instituted by the league. When they decertify then they are able to bring an antitrust lawsuit against their league challenging the lockout as an antitrust violation. Once the players are no longer represented by a union they can argue that the lockout constitutes an illegal “group boycott” by the owners. Apparently, it also allows them to challenge parts of expired collective bargaining agreements like salary caps if the owners keep them in place.
In the end it’s a legal maneuver.
A hilarious one as well, althoiugh still rather a legalistic dick move.
If someone’s going to take the money I spend on alcohol and give it to professional sports, I think the players are more deserving of that money than the team owners. In situations like this, I think of the story of Alan Eagleson organizing the NHL hocke players’ Association. The first thing he had to fight for was the right of the players to see a copy of their contract. There are still a few older players around who made their owners (?!) extremely wealthy and were retired on pensions of $8,000 to $10,000 a year.
Of course, the NHL strike was over the owners telling the players “you should agree to slary caps so we won’t go broke offering you more and more money.”
Of course, the NHL strike was over the owners telling the players “you should agree to salary caps so we won’t go broke offering you more and more money.” But when millionaires fight billionaires, the billionaires usually win.
Maybe it’s just me, but when the players actively create an illegal monopoly (by dissolving their union) specifically so they can then turn around and whine that “the owners are breaking antitrust laws,” well sorry but I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for them.
Plus, as others have mentioned, the players are not some poor downtrodden serfs. They’re millionaires.
No… the thing that stops it from being an illegal monopoly is not the union, it is having a deal with the players union. A group of independent businesses colluding to limit how much the players make and limiting which of the owners they can play for - that’s an illegal monopoly. If the owners don’t want to make a deal, they can go to the situation where all players are free agents all the time. That’s free market.
When the owners are billionaires trying to scrape a few million out of the pockets of players who (except for the lucky few) are fortunate if they last 5 years and make a few million a year… yes, they are the downtrodden serfs in this scenario. Left to their own devices, I suspect the owners would have the same attitude as the old NHL owners and their millions - “what are you complaining about, you only have to play hockey half the year and you make $40,000 a year if you are good.”
And Alan Eagleson ended up in prison for stealing money from hockey players, including Bobby Orr, the greatest player that ever was or ever will be/ Of course, there are quite a few NHL owners who have found themselves in the slammer.Alan Eagleson - Wikipedia
As a follow up question:
If the union is de-certified, does it cease to exist? Does the union layoff its own employees (e.g. secretaries), close offices, sell equipment, etc? If the union continues to exist, isn’t that prima facie evidence that the union was not really de-certified?
Who hires the lawyer to take the league to court? Does some individual player foot the bill? If the lawyer is paid from something other than an individual checking account, isn’t that evidence that the union still is representing the players?
*** Related questions ***
I assume (for example) the Boston Celtics rent space from TD Garden for the Celtics home games. What happens to those contracts? If a home game is scheduled for December 8th, are the Celtics required to pay the rent for that night? What about the food vendors scheduled for that night? Just suppose Barbra Streisand is looking for a venue in Boston for a concert on that date?
How does a labor dispute get resolved after a union decertifies, if there is no collective entity representing the players?
Also, please remember that we’re in GQ. Opinions on the merits of the players’ and owners’ positions are out of place here.
(I apologize for junior modding, but since it’s my OP, I’ll justify it as “clarifying the scope of my question.”) 
[snipped]
I agree, and would add that under-performance by an athlete ends his/her career, while the owner of an awful team will be the owner until he/she decides to sell.
A union requires specific certification to be an official union. They don’t have to disband, just decertify - members vote that they no longer perform the role of official union. Then I guess the secretaries etc. keep their jobs (as long as the players pay into the kitty) but it’s like some player “chamber of commerce” instead.
Yeah, Alan Eagleson turned out to be a dick. He was a lawyer, after all. The fact he could steal millions from the players was a testament to his transformation of a system where good players were lucky to get $100,000 a year. And, competition from the WHA.
After decertification, the next step is to have the team owners declared an illegal monopoly, so they cannot collude on who will or will not talk to any players. Any hint of following the (illegal) existing rules, draft pick exclusivity, etc - and the owners could be sued and fined big-time. Possibly any limiting clauses in player contracts are null and void? Then it’s every player and owner for themselves. You have the pockets to buy the best damn team in history? Go for it.
The players assume the owners, especially in smaller markets with less money will agree to settle with the players “association” before then, at which point they recertify and sign a deal.
For example, look up Eric Lindros NHL draft and his hold-out against the Quebec Nordiques for a year. That sort of stuff would not be allowed in a free market. No draft, no exclusive rights; good players would demand to play for the richest teams with the best endorsement deal prospects, chance to win championships, etc. Possibly even rules about hands off the college players would be null and void.
:dubious: And the players’ union didn’t have lawyers on its side as well?
So just like Major League Baseball.
He was the players’ union lawyer. And stole from them… After he helped them get fabulously wealthy.
And this justifies a global swipe at lawyers how?