http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

It will be interesting to see the fallout of this in all major sports.

^^^^

This.

Brought up a pretty good debate/discussion during my business law class on the sections about Trusts, monopolies, etc.

darbypitcher22 wrote: ^^^^

This.

Brought up a pretty good debate/discussion during my business law class on the sections about Trusts, monopolies, etc.

Care to elaborate on the discussions?

What could be the possible implications?

I could definitely see something with amateur status coming into play here. Especially if it reaches the NBA, allowing players to sign with teams out of high school and become property of those NBA teams. Obviously they wouldn't be eligible to play for a year, and wouldn't be eligible for the NBA draft process, but I could see it happening.

Also, what about NFL teams negotiating their own alternate TV/radio/media exposure, merchandising, etc...it could certainly become an advantage for certain teams.

Collective Bargaining could also be brought into question if they are 32 separate companies.

so in theory, bryce brown could be under contract to say the bears while playing at Tennessee?? very interesting.

what kind of rules will players have to work around to remain eligible for the NCAA??

Does mean that Reebok will no longer run everything?? And teams can go back to wearing whatever they want??

Sooooooo....did they just set a precedent that we are 50 states and not one entity so we can get our states rights back?????

I chuckled, but no SQ. That's not one of the implications of this ruling.

Azubuike24 wrote: I could definitely see something with amateur status coming into play here. Especially if it reaches the NBA, allowing players to sign with teams out of high school and become property of those NBA teams. Obviously they wouldn't be eligible to play for a year, and wouldn't be eligible for the NBA draft process, but I could see it happening.

Also, what about NFL teams negotiating their own alternate TV/radio/media exposure, merchandising, etc...it could certainly become an advantage for certain teams.

I wonder if this will affect the D-League since the players sign contracts with the league not individual teams.

thedynasty1998 wrote:

darbypitcher22 wrote: ^^^^

This.

Brought up a pretty good debate/discussion during my business law class on the sections about Trusts, monopolies, etc.

Care to elaborate on the discussions?

Basically because the leagues own things like television rights, revenues, etc. and can, if they want to, pretty much eliminate any competiton they'd want to(some NFL owners tried to do this to the USFL back in the day) that maybe the leagues should be considered a monopoly of the sport at the professional level

The USFL did win a lawsuit against the NFL...was it being a monopoly?

But they won only like....a dollar or something like that.

j_crazy wrote: so in theory, bryce brown could be under contract to say the bears while playing at Tennessee?? very interesting.

what kind of rules will players have to work around to remain eligible for the NCAA??

I do not think it would have any effect on college players, as the NCAA could declare that once they signed they would lose their amatuer status. I am guessing it will more than likely effect tv/radio rights more than anything. What I envision is individual teams setting a system where, say your a Browns fan that lives in CA, you could pay to watch individual games. Kind of like the NFL Ticket but just paying to watch your teams games.

JU-ICE wrote:

j_crazy wrote: so in theory, bryce brown could be under contract to say the bears while playing at Tennessee?? very interesting.

what kind of rules will players have to work around to remain eligible for the NCAA??

I do not think it would have any effect on college players, as the NCAA could declare that once they signed they would lose their amatuer status. I am guessing it will more than likely effect tv/radio rights more than anything. What I envision is individual teams setting a system where, say your a Browns fan that lives in CA, you could pay to watch individual games. Kind of like the NFL Ticket but just paying to watch your teams games.

Yeah it won't have any effect on the NCAA. The half a dozen or so pending lawsuits by former athletes against the NCAA claiming that the NCAA and their member institutions violated their rights by profiting from their labor without fair reparations have the potential to bring the entire system down if it goes high enough in the court system I would expect the NCAA to try to pay them off before it gets that far though.

This could affect the regionalization of the games on TV.

Right now like MLB has contracts with FOX and ESPN that is shared throughout the league revenue streams. Those are basically national telecasts.

Each team also has local tv deals like the REds and Fox Sports Ohio. Yankees have their own channel with the Nets I think called the YES network. That money I believe stays fully with those teams.

IN the NFL ya dont have the local coverage of games that goes to the teams. Ya have the NBC SNF contract, ESPN contract for MNF and Fox and CBS and also the NFL network. that money all goes towards the league and dispersed.


What I guess CouLD happen is a local channel in Cincy per say could strike their own deal wht the bengals, and the Bengals keep all that money and then that channel gets exclusive rights for all NON national telecasts. Or better yet....maybe a FoxSportsOhio gets the rights to the bengals......they cover all bengals agmes on that channel except for the national games.

And if this happens, you will have contracts like the Reds have with FSN Ohio, which isn't bad, but pales in comparison with what Boston has with NESN or New York with YES Network. If the NFL starts privatizing TV contracts we are in for some major trouble because the TV contract for the NFL as a whole is why all these teams make the money they do.

thavoice wrote: The USFL did win a lawsuit against the NFL...was it being a monopoly?

But they won only like....a dollar or something like that.

I think that the Supreme Court ruled that the NFL wasn't being monopolistic but did use some predatory practices in some NFL owners tampering with USFL franchises.

The USFL won a grand total of $3.73 after legal fees and other applicable financial fees

thanks darby.....knew they won something but wasnt much.

This could create the big time differences in payroll because some teams could get huge $$$ from local TV contracts.

^^^

this is huge. I could definately see Jerry Jones starting a YES type Network in Texas