BSLW6604 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania, National Football League Players Association, Bargaining Unit
8 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
1. Labor Exemption Defense
a. Philadelphia World Hockey Club v. Philadelphia Hockey Club, Inc., 351 F.Supp 462
(E.D.Pa. 1972)
i. WHA challenged NFL’s reserve system: claimed monopoly
ii. NFL cited labor exemption to antitrust laws: a part of the CBA
iii. Courts felt that the reserve clause had been in effect before NHL/NHLPA’s CBA
iv. WHA & NHL settled with merger of leagues
b. Mackey v. NFL, 543 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1976)
i. One of the most significant Sports Law cases in football (Clarett & American
Needle)
ii. Players challenged the Rozelle Rule: a team signing a veteran free agent must
compensate on the player’s former team
iii. Mackey Test
1. The restraint on trade must primarily affect on parties to the CBA
2. The issue must concern a mandatory subject of bargaining
3. The issue must have been achieved through arm’s-length bargaining
c. Smith v. Pro Football, 593 F.2d 1173 (DC Cir. 1978)
i. NFL draft & antitrust laws
1. Draft is anticompetitive and thus an antitrust violation (rule of reason)
2. Balancing test
2. Exemption after expiration of CBA
a. Bridgeman v. NBA, 675 F.Supp. 960 (D.N.J 1987)
i. The CBA between the NBA and NBAPA expired, and at that point, the NBA
players challenged the labor exemption granted the NBA on the draft. The Court
found:
1. The labor exemption does not end immediately after the expiration of
CBA
2. The labor exemption was not indefinite after a CBA expired
3. The labor exemption was still applicable ever after impasse
b. Powell v. NFL, 930 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1989)
i. As long as the conditions imposed by the league after an impasse resulted from
good faith bargaining during the collective bargaining process, the exemption
continued after the expiration of the CBA and after impasse
ii. So as long as the NFL and NFLPA maintaining a continuing bargaining
relationship, the contract provisions in the agreement were exempt from antitrust
litigation
3. Exemption after decertification of union
a. Employers keep winning under labor exemption, NFLPA takes a radical step and
decertifies
i. Individual players then sue the NFL as violating their rights under antitrust law
b. McNeil v. NFL, 790 F.Supp. 871 (D.Minn. 1992)
i. As a result of Powell, the NFLPA decided to decertify as the bargaining
representative of the NFL players in order to allow individual players challenge
the NFL’s restrictive policy using antitrust theory
ii. Players sued the NFL claiming that free agency was a SS 1 violation of the
Sherman Act
iii. The court held that the first prong of the Mackey test could not be met and the
players won
c. Jackson v. NFL, 802 F.Supp. 266 (D.Minn 1992)
i. Keith Jackson and 9 other players sought an injunction from the court to declare
themselves free agents under collateral estoppel
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Labor exemption defense, philadelphia world hockey club v. philadelphia hockey club, inc. , 351 f. supp 462 (e. d. pa. 1976: one of the most significant sports law cases in football (clarett & american. 1978: nfl draft & antitrust laws, draft is anticompetitive and thus an antitrust violation (rule of reason, balancing test, exemption after expiration of cba, bridgeman v. nba, 675 f. supp. 960 (d. n. j 1987: the cba between the nba and nbapa expired, and at that point, the nba players challenged the labor exemption granted the nba on the draft. The court found: the labor exemption does not end immediately after the expiration of. Cba: the labor exemption was not indefinite after a cba expired, the labor exemption was still applicable ever after impasse, powell v. nfl, 930 f. 2d 1293 (8th cir. Sherman act: the court held that the first prong of the mackey test could not be met and the players won, jackson v. nfl, 802 f. supp.
