Recent NFL ruling could drastically alter NBA's labor strategy (cont.)
Not necessarily. Here's why:
Different collective bargaining relationship. For starters, Nelson's decision means that the NFL is enjoined from locking out its players until there is a full trial on the merits. Nelson has not declared that the NFL lockout is illegal, but only that the lockout is likely to be found illegal in a trial and to cause players irreparable harm in the meantime.
Moreover, Nelson's order discusses factors unique to the economic relationship between the NFL and the players. A key factual difference between the NBA and NFL imposing a lockout dates back to 1993, when, as part of settlement, a decertified NFLPA agreed to a notable "disclaimer". Specifically, the NFLPA agreed to recertify, and NFL players agreed to end their antitrust suit against the NFL, in exchange for the league agreeing to waive any right to assert the non-statutory labor exemption, after the expiration of the CBA, on the ground that the player's disclaimer constituted a sham. In other words, the NFL purportedly agreed to not block the NFLPA from decertifying at a later date. The NBA and NBPA have no such disclaimer in their bargaining history. For that reason, a court may be inclined to let the NLRB decide first on an unfair labor charge before any antitrust claims are heard. Tactically, that would give the NBA a huge advantage, since the labor relations board would likely take up to a year to decide the charge and thus a lockout could last an entire season or more before any legal action.
In addition, the collective bargaining agreement between the league and its players does not, as a practical matter, compel immediate decertification. Under the recently expired agreement between the NFL and NFLPA, the players' union had to decertify before the agreement expired or it would have -- per the agreement -- been barred from doing so for six months. The NBA's players' association contains no such clause, so its decision to decertify may come under greater legal scrutiny.
A preliminary injunction might harm the NBA more than the NFL.
To be sure, Nelson's sweeping language against the NFL lockout should concern NBA owners who are relying on a lockout. But one of four required factors in a trial judge's decision to grant a preliminary junction is the likely harm to be suffered by the enjoined party. Given that not one NFL team could show that it is losing money, Nelson found the possible "harm" to NFL owners by having a 2011 season to be too speculative. In contrast, if the NBA can show that 22 teams are losing money, the harm to NBA owners by having basketball -- and the corresponding payment of player salaries -- would be more credible.
NBA players may be less able to show irreparable harm caused by a lockout.
Another factor in a trial judge's decision to grant a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiffs -- be they NFL players or NBA players -- would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. Irreparable harm refers to a harm that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages.
Nelson, in relying on numerous affidavits, including from such prominent player agents as Neil Cornich and Tom Condon, determined that NFL players would suffer irreparable harm if they missed the 2011 season. During that time, players would age, and given that NFL players are usually in their 20s or early 30s and usually only play a few seasons, missing just one year of football might be akin to the typical person, who normally works decades in his/her lifetime, missing many years of work. Players would also lose out on conditioning and training opportunities. And as Nelson ruled, free agents are hurt even before a missed 2011 season since they cannot sign with teams during a locked out off season. She also found that 2011 rookies would be particularly hurt by a lockout since they would return in 2012 after missing a year of football -- in both the pros and college -- and then be expected to compete with 2012 rookies, who would be fresh off playing in college.
Most of Nelson's logic holds true for NBA players, as well. In fact, to advance her reasoning on irreparable harm, she cited Spencer Haywood's successful antitrust suit against the NBA in 1971. Haywood, one of the best players in the rival American Basketball Association and then a signee of the Seattle SuperSonics, was barred from entering the NBA until four years after his high-school graduation. The NBA's restriction had not been collectively bargained and was thus subject to antitrust law. A court found that he would suffer irreparable harm by missing four years of playing in the NBA.
The presence of alternative employment opportunities in pro basketball, however, could sway a different judge, particularly one who is more inclined than Nelson to favor the league's views. Indeed, if the NBA instituted a lockout, some players would likely seek and obtain comparable employment in Europe and elsewhere. While those leagues impose restrictions on the number of U.S. players allowed on rosters, the restrictions could be changed in the event of the supply of available NBA players suddenly surges on July 1. The NBA would argue that irreparable harm should not be found if players can pursue comparable opportunities elsewhere.
In response, however, NBA players would likely cite the Haywood case: even though Haywood could play professionally in the ABA, a court nonetheless found that he suffered irreparable harm by not being able to play in the NBA. NBA players would probably also charge that playing and living abroad should not constitute an equivalent employment opportunity to playing in the NBA and living in one's home country.
Nelson won't be the judge.
If NBA players bring an antitrust lawsuit, there's a good chance it would be heard in New York, where both the NBA and the union have head-quarters, and a small chance it would be heard in Minnesota. Therefore, Nelson, who is on the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, would not hear the case. The main reason why she is the judge for Tom Brady et al. v. NFL is that the NFL and NFLPA previously agreed that Judge David Doty, who is on the same court, would hear disputes concerning the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining relationship. Doty's purview does not include litigation following the end of the collective bargaining relationship. Therefore, he is not hearing the Brady lawsuit. The litigation, however, remains in Minnesota.
Nelson's order would also not be binding on a New York court, or on any court outside of Minnesota. While a judge in another jurisdiction would likely find Nelson's order persuasive, he or she may view the legal arguments in a manner more favorable to the league and perhaps dismiss Nelson as outright wrong. Even if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agrees with Nelson in the NFL's appeal of her order, a court in New York would only be obligated to follow the law of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over federal courts in New York, and not that of the Eighth Circuit.
Particularly in light of its decisions in Maurice Clarett v. NFL and Daniel Silverman v. MLB, the Second Circuit is generally regarded as favoring the application of labor law to resolve disputes between leagues and players. Such a disposition would work to the NBA's advantage in an antitrust lawsuit brought by NBA players, as the league would be poised to avoid application of antitrust law if a court defers to the NLRB and its labor law expertise.
I am more skeptical of the NBA and NBPA reaching a deal that would save the 2011-12 season than I am of the NFL and its players reaching one to save this upcoming season. While the accuracy of financial numbers and their causes can certainly be argued, it appears that NBA owners are worse off than their NFL counterparts, and their calculus for not having a season is different from that of NFL owners. NBA owners may conclude that it's worth a drawn-out, expensive and risky litigation process over playing a season in which most teams will lose money. Also, differences noted above suggest that Nelson's order in favor of NFL players should not be viewed as automatically forecasting similar success for NBA players, particularly since an antitrust case brought by NBA players would probably be heard in a different federal circuit and before a different judge.
Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law. He also teaches a sports law and analytics reading group at Yale Law School. Follow him on Twitter.
Sceviour's late goal leads Stars to win over Avalanche
Canadiens use third-period surge to beat Coyotes