ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE!

    I n Response to Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE! :      Lump in Steelers' RB Rashard Mendenhall with Peterson...as he agreed with Peterson's slave comments.      Whenever you read comments like this, you have to ask yourself, "Why do you care about football...and the arrogant, pampered players who play the game?" With people struggling just to make ends meet...these types of garbage comments really tick me off: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_727833.html   
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    These two meaning Peterson and Mendenhall should be put in a time machine, if one existed and shot back in time to the plantation for a few days to give them proper perspective. Once back to modern times I think they would stop complaining and appreciate what they have. Both are very gifted athletes who play in a not so perfect system, but without the NFL owners they wouldn't be so well off financially, not saying of course that the NFL owners aren't a very greedy lot either. The want to go to an 18 game season confirms this much. 

    Hetchinspete. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE!

    In Response to Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE! : The NFL does have an antitrust exemption that allows the league to negotiate the TV rights rather than the individual teams. [/QUOTE]

    The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 did make it legal for teams belonging to a league to negotiate broadcasting contracts collectively.  But that's a limited exemption for all sports teams.  It doesn't make the teams exempt from antitrust law generally.

    Baseball has a broader exemption coming from a 1922 Supreme Court ruling that basically said baseball is exempt because it's a pastime not a business (yeah, right!). The Curt Flood Act in 1998 modified that ruling and specified that baseball is in fact subject to antitrust rules when it comes to employment. (But since baseball has a CBA, antitrust law isn't relevant because with a union and a CBA, antitrust laws don't apply).

    [QUOTE] Cant have it both ways, either you stick with the system where revenues are shared and player costs are controlled, or each team is an individual entity, and you end up with a league of haves and have-nots.
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111[/QUOTE]

    Here's the issue. The law does allow for collective negotiating of TV contracts and therefore also revenue sharing from TV deals. But it doesn't (or at least doesn't appear to) allow for controlling player costs outside of a mutually agreed CBA between the teams and the league.  I say "at least doesn't appear to" because one never knows how the Courts will rule.  

    It's also worth noting that in the recent American Needle case, the Supreme Court found (unanimously) that the NFL teams couldn't negotiate clothing deals collectively and rejected the NFL's claim that antitrust law didn't apply to it broadly. The TV exemption for sports leagues is the result of a law that provides a very narrow exemption to antitrust law. You can't extrapolate a broader exemption from that narrow one.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE!

    In Response to Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: ADRIAN PETERSON: ITS LIKE SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN... I AGREE! : I agree with you on some points but comparing the draft to a livestock auction is preposterous. Every sport has a draft. Are they all livestock auctions. If no draft, please present an alternative, I'd like to hear a proposal of some sort. Complete open free agency right out of college. Sorry, but in my opinion the draft is the best system. Without a draft it would be complete chaos.  
    Posted by Hetchinspete[/QUOTE]

    Oh, I'd like the draft retained too.  I think it's probably good for the sport. Not sure it would be "chaos" without the draft, but "parity" would probably be harder to achieve. 

    That said, however, there's no doubt in my mind that a draft seriously limits the freedom of individuals to seek employment where they want. It's the lack of freedom of the acquired (players and cows) to choose where they are going that makes the draft and livestock auctions seem just a bit similar.  And it's the idea of "acquiring" exclusive rights to an individual that does, if even rather distantly, just a little resemble slavery.

    Whatever reservations I might have about a draft and it's semblance to a livestock (or, yes, we may as well say it, a slave) auction are easily relieved if the rules that govern the draft are set by a good CBA that players and owners have mutually agreed upon. Once there's a mutually beneficial agreement between the acquired and acquiring, a process like a draft seems perfectly fair and reasonable. But having that mutually agreed upon and mutually beneficial contract seems imperative to me. Without such a CBA, I find the draft a lot more troubling. And I suspect the Courts will too.

     





     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share