Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you... NFL loses effort to obtain immunity from antitrust suits (sportsillustrated.cnn.com)
The end result isn't surprising, but what is surprising is that the decision was unanimous. When the big business neo-con wing of the court doesn't think you deserve protection, it's really a defeat in almost every way possible. This should give the NFLPA some major ammunition for the inevitable protracted fight over the new contract come next winter.
What no one is talking about, though, is the repercussions this might have for MLB. Their antitrust immunity is based on an antiquated court decision from nearly a century ago and I fail to see how they're structured differently enough from the NFL to deserve it. I could easily see some company raising a similar legal challenge in the near future to reconcile this decision with that case.
smark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated (Holds; June 18, 2006) While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.
The details for this case and its ramifications for the CBA were long, complicated, and kinda made the average fan's head hurt. Suffice to say, all I knew was that if the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the NFL, player salaries would have taken a dramatic hit and a lockout would have been inevitable. As it is, there seems to be some hope now of avoiding a work stoppage in 2011.
And let's hope so. For cripes' sake, the NFL practically prints money right now. Why the hell would they risk that with a lockout and a lost season? Let's hope someone came to their senses with this court decision.
I think the conclusion that the end is near either way regarding this decision is false.
Had the NFL prevailed, it COULD have tried to use the "we're one entity" in negotiations. But, they already do that, so no big deal.
This decision only says that they can't have a single apparel deal. Logically, they can't have a single beer sponsor, but they could have a single TV contract, because that part of negotiations HAS to reflect the entire league in order to work.
Welcome home, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Infantry, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, WI Army National Guard! Job well done in Iraq!
Originally posted by Sec19Row53Logically, they can't have a single beer sponsor...
Exactly Jerry Jones' point in the early 1990s, when Coke had a sponsorship deal with the whole NFL, but Jerry was the first owner to sign a Dallas Cowboys-only sponsorship deal with a different soda maker.
Soon enough, Pepsi signs went up at Texas Stadium, to the chagrin of Paul Tagliabue. Now, everybody does it.
Who, m'oi? :-) BTW, here's the Packers.com article. My take: McKenzie was a cancer. I hate to give him what he wants, but barring a Ty Law-esque complete face turn, he had to go. Sure, the defense sucks without him...