Roger Goodell was Commissioner of the NFL since 2006. (Sean Gardner/Getty Images)Owners and players of the NFL have taken their fight to the courtroom.
Representatives of both parties arrived at a federal courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota, Wednesday morning. A group of players of application to a judge to issue a preliminary injunction on the lockout, the owners imposed after discussions on a new collective agreement is detached and three weeks ago.
Several players are present, including the applicants named, Mike Vrabel, Vincent Jackson, Von Miller and Brian Robison. Veterans Tony Richardson and Charlie Batch and old Hall of Famer Carl Eller are in court and.
The appearance before the Tribunal is the first round between the NFL and its players locked in their legal fight on the future of the company of 9 billion dollars - including the 2011 season.
The players - with stars like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees among applicants and retirees and the rookies still in the game to join them in support - ask for an immediate end to the lockout on the basis of "irreparable harm" of their career. The injunction application accompanies the antitrust lawsuit against the League after job talks broke down on March 11.
Another legal action was filed Tuesday by Middle Tennessee State wide receiver Garrett Andrews eligible project, which supports the League violated anti-trust laws and created an anti-competitive market.
The League said it has the right to prevent players from work and said that the Court should expect that the rules of the National Labor Relations Board on his claim that the players did a not negotiate in good faith.
The fight is complicated and perhaps uninteresting to the average football early April plan when the start of the season is still five months. But the fate of the favourite team throughout the world is at stake.
"Even if football is experiencing unprecedented popularity... nothing is invulnerable," said David Allen Larson, a Professor of law of work and employment at the law school of the Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, where U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson will hold the hearing.
The first work stoppage in the NFL since the 1987 strike - and the first all League sports major U.S since the NHL lockout has lost the 2004-2005 season - has developed in one of the nasty litigation record in sport. Players objected to financial concessions more when the owners would not open their books, and the owners insist that revocation of the certification of the union is a sham not concocted only to apply leverage in the fight.
Now, they agree even on which laws apply to the case, with the owners for the right to work and players preferring the anti-trust rules.
Nelson is not likely to rule on the request for an injunction Wednesday. It could side with the players and the injunction, involving pro football back in business. Or it could side with the owners and or refuse the injunction or waiting to decide until the NLRB rules on the submission of the League that decertification was a ploy by illegitimate negotiation.
The winner would have fresh lever whenever resumed negotiations on a new collective agreement. Of course, everything which decide Nelson will be almost certainly be appealed.
Confused? Just wait. It could become even more complicated if Nelson throws the lockout, which would be not as simple as it may seem. How then to manage the free agency could be a major argument, as far as the players are eligible and if a salary cap would be in place.
It is one of the arguments of the League against the injunction, claiming the uncertainty to put in place without a Pact football work would have "adverse effect" on the competitive balance of the League.
This scenario would be "difficult, if not impossible, to decrypt the egg and return these players" to their original teams if the NFL finally win this case, the League attorneys wrote in a court filing. Spokesman for the League Greg Aiello declined further comment.
The League has accused the players of a "leaders that I win, tails you lose that" stop who wants a review antitrust to ask if there is a lock-out or not.
"Many observers believe that antitrust laws work really crappy and imperfect of dealing with sports and therefore the solution is to force the parties to bargain collectively together," said Stephen Ross, Director of the Penn State Institute for law of the sportPolitique and research. "If you believe that, then you will think that the revocation of accreditation is not really legitimate."
Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for lead for players, represented twenty years when they revoked after the strike failed in 1987, went to the Court and settled with the owners with the ABC just expired that created the modern free agency.
"It was not a sham, and it is not a sham," Kessler said. "The players have waived precious things in a union."
Jonathan Rubin, a Prosecutor in the trial of Washington and an antitrust expert, said that he sees "uphill battle" for the players in the Court.
"Because they could be avoided shopping for the legal framework, if this is the antitrust law or of the right to work." "The Federal Court could decide that this is not the power of private parties to determine by contract, which is the implied thing players require," said Rubin, a former partner of DeMaurice Smith, head of the NFL Players Association before its dissolution.
"It is a very delicate case, because there is very little precedent to go".
Rick Karcher, Director of the Centre of the Florida coastal School of Law and Sports law, disagreed.
"There is nothing in the laws of the work or by previous court anywhere that explains the labour market in a workplace must be a certified Union," Karcher said. "It is a dangerous precedent, and I do not think that any court would order such a thing." This is why I think that the union has a case stronger. ?
Ross added: "now sports fans should be rooting for players." If the judge granted the injunction the League will not be able to lock the players, and they return you to the negotiating table "to speak to an agreement."
Ah, an agreement. This is what the fans are wishing for.
"In the end the two parties are better sticking to the business of football", said Rubin, "" and the two parties know that somewhere deep down and they will have to reach a point where there are diminishing returns to continue disputes.""
没有评论:
发表评论