Legal News

NFL to Judge: There?s Nothing to See Here. Really.

By Ashby Jones

The National Football League on Monday responded to the players’ lawsuit, made about 10 days ago in Minneapolis federal court, which argued that the NFL violated the antitrust laws. (Click here for a post on the filing.)

In short: the NFL told the judge presiding over the case, Susan R. Nelson, that, well, thanks, but there was really no reason for her to get involved.

In its 57-page reply to the antitrust lawsuit now known as Tom Brady vs. the NFL, the league accused the NFL Players Association of making a mockery of the collective-bargaining process and hatching a two-year plan to achieve a new work agreement through the courts rather than at the negotiating table. Click here for WSJ reporter Matthew Futterman’s article.

The league’s lawyers, led by David Boies, cited federal labor laws in arguing the courts can’t get in the way of a private employer locking out workers. In addition, the lawyers argued the courts should await the outcome of a National Labor Relations Board investigation into the validity of the players association’s decision to decertify the union.

“The law is not so easily manipulated,” NFL lawyers assert in their argument. “One party to a collective bargaining relationship cannot, through its own tactical and unilateral conduct, instantaneously oust federal labor law or extinguish another party’s labor law rights.”

Dewey & LeBoeuf’s Jeffrey Kessler, chief outside counsel to the players association, said the NFL’s arguments “are 100% what we expected.” He added, “there is nothing new here.” He has said the expired agreement prohibited the owners from challenging decertification.

The legal standoff has produced a stalemate, with both sides waiting to see who wins in court before resuming talks.

The two sides are fighting over how to divide roughly $9.4 billion in annual revenue. According to league officials, the sides’ proposals for total annual compensation for the players are $340 million apart, though players’ leaders say the figure is $448 million.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 22, 2011 (boomark / email).