Brady v. NFL: Breaking Down the Players' Complaint

by MrPants on Mar 14, 2011 8:57 PM CDT

I have read a lot of posturing of what the legal battle between the NFL and the players means. Most peoples opinions are based on journalists taking quotes out of context. To help clarify what is going on, here is a summary of the complaint and motion in support filed by the NFL Players. To put this in context, it might be helpful to gain a basic understanding of antitrust law.

The current CBA resulted from, and is based primarily upon, a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement that resulted from White v. NFL. For the sake of simplicity, I am only going to refer to these documents as the CBA collectively. On March 11, 2011 Tom Brady, eight other NFL players, and one prospective player filed a CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against the NFL and also filled a MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

The complaint consists of 6 basic arguments:

1) The establishment of the players as a class

The purpose of this section is to establish that all NFL players are similarly enough situated to sue the NFL as a single body.

2) The establishment of the validity of the decertification of the NFLPA.

This is necessary in order to bring any antitrust suit. An antitrust suit cannot be brought under the Sherman Act when there is a collective bargaining organization, in this case the NFLPA, in place. If the NFL locked the players out prior to their decertification, then the players would have to wait through a tolling period before they would be allowed to decerrtfy.

3) That the he NFL waived the ability to claim a labor exemption after the expiration of the CBA.

If this stands up, it prevents the NFL from challenging the validity of the decertification in court. In effect, it means that the NFL must accept the decertification is valid, and, thus, cannot claim that they are immune from antitrust violations because the players are still functioning as a union.

4) A description of the types of impermissible restrictions on trade.

This includes the draft, franchising of players, transition tags, restricted free agency, and most importantly the lockout itself. They go on to discuss later how the Salary cap itself is a restraint on players receiving free market value. There are claims for breach of contract and tortuous interference with prospective contractual relations for preventing the players to complete their contracts or agree to new contracts.

5) The players ask for declaratory judgment under the conditions of the CBA.

If the players win this, the case is over without trial. However, judges rarely declare declaritory judgement.

6) Request for relief.

The players ask for an injunction preventing a lockout. A removal of the draft, all restrictive player tags, an order preventing the owners from not paying the players, and various material damages.

My Opinion Interestingly, no players that not eligible for the current draft were included in the suit. The age restrictions on players entering the draft could have also been challenged as a player restriction

This FanPost was written by a Windy City Gridiron member, and does not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of its staff or community.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Curious

When they are filing suit (current players), wouldn’t the draft not pertain to them? It was and agreed arrangement when they were drafted. Curious as to how they file suit when it doesn’t have an action to them.

Also if the owners dismissed said things could the players still file suit? Again it was done under agreed upon rules in the past. Seems the owners could have a “gentlemens agreement” and set rules like team cap and trade guidelines such as service etc.

by TheMan1 on Mar 14, 2011 9:34 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

Missed the reply button

I think you can make an argument that the players to be drafted should belong to a different class, and that is likely why the age restricted players were not included. However, when the restrictions on players entering the league was previously litigated, the NFL successfully argued that the current crop of players that had agreed to the CBA represented players entering the league. So I’d imagine that since the CBA covered their challenge they are part of the same class.

What do you mean if the NFL dismissed said things? If you mean if the owners agree to all concessions, then the owners could settle the case on any terms. However, if the owners just changed the rules, the players could still likely sue because of the ease of the owners changing the rules again.

by MrPants on Mar 14, 2011 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Dismissed

Seems the players are fighting their restriction statuses mostly. So if the owners did away with things like franchise tags and restricted free agency would the players still have a case. I could see (as owners) dismiss those things and agree to make all players play out their contracts (or I would imagine the player breaking the contract could be sued) if that would dismiss the case and or if they lose said case.

Thanks for the info on the previous rulings

by TheMan1 on Mar 15, 2011 11:35 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

If the owners did away with

everything the players found objectionable, the case could be dismissed for mootness. However, the ability of the owners to reinstate those rules might, and I would guess would, allow the players to continue the suit to ban the restrictions.

by MrPants on Mar 15, 2011 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions

by MrPants on Mar 14, 2011 10:42 PM CDT reply actions

Thanks for this.

The part I have to ask about it this…

Interestingly, no players that not eligible for the current draft were included in the suit. The age restrictions on players entering the draft could have also been challenged as a player restriction

While I agree the age restrictions could have been challenged (and may very well be under 4)… Baseball, basketball and hockey all could draft right out of high school (basketball, well, until the 1-year rule). MLB has minor leagues that go three, four, five teams deep if you count rookie ball. NHL has juniors and the AHL. The NBA has the NBDL, but for the most part has no farm system whatsoever, and compared to the hits delivered in football is nowhere near as physical. Then it’s the sheer jump in competition from high-school, where there’s at most one pro-quality player, to the NFL. Either a farm system (i.e., college level) would need to develop or there’d have to be protection in stashing a high school player on the practice squad or something. Not to say that’s on the players’ minds, but that could be a reason why it wouldn’t be up for grabs.

by Steven Schweickert on Mar 15, 2011 7:44 AM CDT reply actions

Well MLB is a little bit different

They have a special relationship with antitrust laws that the other sports leagues would love to enjoy. But my guess is that the non eligible players might be considered part of a different class for the lawsuit or the players union is a rather weak union so there was concern they would lose some support of the current players if they were included. After all, the more rookies that enter the league, the more veterans are forced out.

There is also the possibility that participation in the law suit would effect a college player’s eligibility. Either through the expression of interest in the draft or through the payment of legal fees being considered a gift.

by MrPants on Mar 15, 2011 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions