Tweet
The NFL is falling behind in its court fight with the players over the future of the $9 billion business.
The federal judge who lifted the lockout dealt another blow to the league late Wednesday, denying its request to put her ruling on hold pending appeals and guaranteeing more limbo for all 32 teams, thousands of players and millions of fans.
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said the NFL had fallen short in proving a stay was warranted and dismissed its argument that it is facing irreparable harm because of her decision to end the 45-day lockout.
"The world of 'chaos' the NFL claims it has been thrust into -- essentially the 'free-market' system this nation otherwise willfully operates under -- is not compelled by this court's order," Nelson wrote.
And yet chaos there may be, perhaps as early as Thursday, the first day of the NFL draft.
James Quinn, a lawyer for the players, said free agency -- the biggest immediate question for owners and players alike -- should start immediately.
"We are evaluating the district court's decision and will advise our clubs [Thursday] morning on how to proceed," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.
The NFL Players Association, now a trade group and not a union, accused the league of stalling.
"On the eve of one of the greatest fan events in sports, the players moved another step closer to bringing the fans football," spokesman George Atallah said in an email to The Associated Press. "Owners seem determined to prevent that from happening. The NFL owners are not litigating to protect the game. They're litigating to protect a lockout."
Nelson's ruling was not a surprise, given her questioning of NFL attorney David Boies during an April 6 hearing and her 89-page order lifting the lockout. She wrote another 20 pages in her denial Wednesday, declaring the public's interest in the resumption of league operations.
The judge acknowledged that her decision will be appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, and Aiello said that step was being taken immediately. The appellate court is viewed as a more friendly venue to businesses like the league than the federal courts in Minnesota.
"We believe there are strong legal and practical reasons that support a stay and that the Court of Appeals should have an opportunity to address the important legal issues that will be presented," Aiello said.
Late Wednesday, the league had no rules in place, shelved since the collective bargaining agreement ended on March 11 and the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 began.
Nelson said that needn't be the case.
The judge said her order does not "obligate the NFL to enter into contracts" or oversee the league's "non-lockout conduct in general." She suggested that the NFL "make a decision about how to proceed and accept the consequences" of that choice and said she saw no evidence of "injury" to the league from the end of the lockout.
In saying the NFL could go about its business, Nelson used the league's own steps against it, citing the draft, the announcement of the 2011 schedule and even Commissioner Roger Goodell's proclamation that the NFL intends to play the full 16 games and the playoffs.
Nelson also pointed to the contract tenders teams issued to restricted free agents in March before the lockout, "treating them as if the league intended to operate with the 2010 rules in place."
What the NFL will do Thursday was anyone's guess, though Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested the 2010 rules might be used.
"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said Tuesday. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."
Bears safety Chris Harris put it this way in a tweet: "With lockout lifted. Owners have to open doors. Its impossible to start the NEW LEAGUE YR without Free Agency."
And agent Drew Rosenhaus tweeted: "Time to get busy! Let's work!"
The NFL had argued that Nelson had no jurisdiction and that she shouldn't make a decision while a complaint of bad-faith negotiation against the players was still pending with the National Labor Relations Board. The league also said it shouldn't be subject to some of the antitrust claims leveled by the players with the collective bargaining deal barely expired.
The judge shot all of those down.
The league's plea to Nelson for the stay was also based on a purported fear that an immediate lifting of the lockout would result in a free agency free-for-all that could create a mess that would be difficult to undo should a new collective bargaining agreement lead to different rules.
Nelson called that an "incorrect premise." She insisted that her order was simply an end to the lockout, not a prohibition of the player constraints like franchise and transition tags that help the league maintain competitive balance.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, during an earlier predraft event in New York, said he wasn't worried about the state of confusion tarnishing the league's image but stressed his desire to "remove" the uncertainty.
"It's one of the things I don't think is healthy for the players, the clubs and most importantly our fans," he said.
Attorneys for the players had ridiculed the NFL's argument that it risks either violating antitrust laws by coming up with new league rules without a CBA in place or harming its competitive balance by allowing unrestricted free agency.
"If the NFL defendants are faced with a dilemma, they put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," the attorneys wrote. "Any alleged predicament is of their own making."
The solution, the players argued, is to simply implement a system that does not violate antitrust laws.
Nelson agreed.
"Again, the NFL argues it will suffer irreparable harm because it is now 'forced to choose between the irreparable harm of unrestricted free agency or the irreparable harm of more treble damages lawsuits," Nelson wrote. "There is no injunction in place preventing the NFL from exercising, under its hoped-for protection of the labor laws, any of its rights to negotiate terms and conditions of employment, such as free agency."
The two sides had 16 days of talks with a mediator earlier this year and four more ordered by Nelson with a federal magistrate. Little progress has been seen, though the two sides are scheduled to meet again May 16.
Source: AP
The federal judge who lifted the lockout dealt another blow to the league late Wednesday, denying its request to put her ruling on hold pending appeals and guaranteeing more limbo for all 32 teams, thousands of players and millions of fans.
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said the NFL had fallen short in proving a stay was warranted and dismissed its argument that it is facing irreparable harm because of her decision to end the 45-day lockout.
"The world of 'chaos' the NFL claims it has been thrust into -- essentially the 'free-market' system this nation otherwise willfully operates under -- is not compelled by this court's order," Nelson wrote.
And yet chaos there may be, perhaps as early as Thursday, the first day of the NFL draft.
James Quinn, a lawyer for the players, said free agency -- the biggest immediate question for owners and players alike -- should start immediately.
"We are evaluating the district court's decision and will advise our clubs [Thursday] morning on how to proceed," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.
The NFL Players Association, now a trade group and not a union, accused the league of stalling.
"On the eve of one of the greatest fan events in sports, the players moved another step closer to bringing the fans football," spokesman George Atallah said in an email to The Associated Press. "Owners seem determined to prevent that from happening. The NFL owners are not litigating to protect the game. They're litigating to protect a lockout."
Nelson's ruling was not a surprise, given her questioning of NFL attorney David Boies during an April 6 hearing and her 89-page order lifting the lockout. She wrote another 20 pages in her denial Wednesday, declaring the public's interest in the resumption of league operations.
The judge acknowledged that her decision will be appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, and Aiello said that step was being taken immediately. The appellate court is viewed as a more friendly venue to businesses like the league than the federal courts in Minnesota.
"We believe there are strong legal and practical reasons that support a stay and that the Court of Appeals should have an opportunity to address the important legal issues that will be presented," Aiello said.
Late Wednesday, the league had no rules in place, shelved since the collective bargaining agreement ended on March 11 and the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 began.
Nelson said that needn't be the case.
The judge said her order does not "obligate the NFL to enter into contracts" or oversee the league's "non-lockout conduct in general." She suggested that the NFL "make a decision about how to proceed and accept the consequences" of that choice and said she saw no evidence of "injury" to the league from the end of the lockout.
In saying the NFL could go about its business, Nelson used the league's own steps against it, citing the draft, the announcement of the 2011 schedule and even Commissioner Roger Goodell's proclamation that the NFL intends to play the full 16 games and the playoffs.
Nelson also pointed to the contract tenders teams issued to restricted free agents in March before the lockout, "treating them as if the league intended to operate with the 2010 rules in place."
What the NFL will do Thursday was anyone's guess, though Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested the 2010 rules might be used.
"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said Tuesday. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."
Bears safety Chris Harris put it this way in a tweet: "With lockout lifted. Owners have to open doors. Its impossible to start the NEW LEAGUE YR without Free Agency."
And agent Drew Rosenhaus tweeted: "Time to get busy! Let's work!"
The NFL had argued that Nelson had no jurisdiction and that she shouldn't make a decision while a complaint of bad-faith negotiation against the players was still pending with the National Labor Relations Board. The league also said it shouldn't be subject to some of the antitrust claims leveled by the players with the collective bargaining deal barely expired.
The judge shot all of those down.
The league's plea to Nelson for the stay was also based on a purported fear that an immediate lifting of the lockout would result in a free agency free-for-all that could create a mess that would be difficult to undo should a new collective bargaining agreement lead to different rules.
Nelson called that an "incorrect premise." She insisted that her order was simply an end to the lockout, not a prohibition of the player constraints like franchise and transition tags that help the league maintain competitive balance.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, during an earlier predraft event in New York, said he wasn't worried about the state of confusion tarnishing the league's image but stressed his desire to "remove" the uncertainty.
"It's one of the things I don't think is healthy for the players, the clubs and most importantly our fans," he said.
Attorneys for the players had ridiculed the NFL's argument that it risks either violating antitrust laws by coming up with new league rules without a CBA in place or harming its competitive balance by allowing unrestricted free agency.
"If the NFL defendants are faced with a dilemma, they put themselves in that position by repeatedly imposing rules and restrictions that violate the antitrust laws," the attorneys wrote. "Any alleged predicament is of their own making."
The solution, the players argued, is to simply implement a system that does not violate antitrust laws.
Nelson agreed.
"Again, the NFL argues it will suffer irreparable harm because it is now 'forced to choose between the irreparable harm of unrestricted free agency or the irreparable harm of more treble damages lawsuits," Nelson wrote. "There is no injunction in place preventing the NFL from exercising, under its hoped-for protection of the labor laws, any of its rights to negotiate terms and conditions of employment, such as free agency."
The two sides had 16 days of talks with a mediator earlier this year and four more ordered by Nelson with a federal magistrate. Little progress has been seen, though the two sides are scheduled to meet again May 16.
Source: AP