[Goose]

However, I don't think we are on a path to where sports leagues are dissolved by the courts as a violation of anti-trust regulation.

BC

For most pro leagues, most of the anti-trust issues in dealing with employees go away with a collectively bargained union contract.

To a degree. The problem is that the NFL (for example) is not the employer. The individual teams are. This leaves all kinds of open questions about the CBA. As long as the players and teams agree not to litigate any of them, everything is fine. If anybody ever does file a suit and try to litigate exactly what it all means it is unclear what would happen. It is a kind of MAD that up to now has worked.

Not employment related, but the Al Davis to LA suit and the NBA absorbing the ABA were both perilous for the leagues. Everybody was dancing on pins to avoid creating the motivation to go the anti-trust route. The leagues knew that if it went that way, they were screwed. There were two anti-trust suits involved in the NBA ABA merger. The NBA was basically petrified those suits would go forward and they would lose. The owners of the ABA teams that went out of existence still got paid their share of the deal. Wouldn't have happened except for anti-trust fears.

The rhetoric of several court decisions (from Wilken, and Kavanaugh's concurring opinion at the SC) would seem to imply that amateur sports leagues that bring in significant revenue aren't allowed. However, the remedies proposed seem to be much closer to small tweaks of the existing system than anything that would match the rhetoric.

For now. The rulings is narrow, which gives all the stakeholders time to figure out what needs to be done and get Congress to do it. The concurring opinion basically says "You have been warned. Next time, it may be a sweeping judgement. You won't like it".

[Goose]

However, I don't think we are on a path to where sports leagues are dissolved by the courts as a violation of anti-trust regulation.

BC

For most pro leagues, most of the anti-trust issues in dealing with employees go away with a collectively bargained union contract.

To a degree. The problem is that the NFL (for example) is not the employer. The individual teams are. This leaves all kinds of open questions about the CBA. As long as the players and teams agree not to litigate any of them, everything is fine. If anybody ever does file a suit and try to litigate exactly what it all means it is unclear what would happen. It is a kind of MAD that up to now has worked.

Not employment related, but the Al Davis to LA suit and the NBA absorbing the ABA were both perilous for the leagues. Everybody was dancing on pins to avoid creating the motivation to go the anti-trust route. The leagues knew that if it went that way, they were screwed. There were two anti-trust suits involved in the NBA ABA merger. The NBA was basically petrified those suits would go forward and they would lose. The owners of the ABA teams that went out of existence still got paid their share of the deal. Wouldn't have happened except for anti-trust fears.

The rhetoric of several court decisions (from Wilken, and Kavanaugh's concurring opinion at the SC) would seem to imply that amateur sports leagues that bring in significant revenue aren't allowed. However, the remedies proposed seem to be much closer to small tweaks of the existing system than anything that would match the rhetoric.

For now. The rulings is narrow, which gives all the stakeholders time to figure out what needs to be done and get Congress to do it. The concurring opinion basically says "You have been warned. Next time, it may be a sweeping judgement. You won't like it".