Great Steve Kerr Article on NBA Age Minimum

Fanmail from some FF00FFlounder?

Quote from: Tha Kid on May 08, 2012, 05:02:47 PM

Potentially = with a possibility of becoming actual

Remove the exemption, and the possibility of being illegal becomes actual.

I stand by my original comment.  Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean it was wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Like many web dullards you rely on condescension, being devoid of critical thinking and rhetorical skills. Killing a human being is potentially a crime. Homicide,  a crime, is illegal. Justifiable homicide, not a crime, is both legal and not illegal. Justifiable homicide is not potentially illegal, homicide is not potentially legal, and neither is potentially the other. Killing a human is potentially both. This is not a terribly subtle but seemingly it eludes you. Write back when you've worked it out.

Can't treat this like it's a permanent condition.  The anti-trust exemption for pro sports isn't set in stone, and if anything it's moving in the direction Foad advocates.  And it is logical that the legality of the court-permitted monopoly would be increasingly questioned, over time, when baseball's business activities have expanded since the '20s from from being a regional entertainment provider to the current international media conglomerate and IP licensing behemoth it is now.   There's a pattern in the decisions that show the issue will come to a head sooner or later...

Federal Baseball Club v. NL (1922) 9 - 0
Toolson v Yankees (1953) 7 - 2
Kurt Flood v Kuhn (1972) 6-3   With Powell recusing himself because he owned stock in Budweiser, owner of the Cardinals. 

And the dissents in the Flood case, were notable both by their authors (Brennan, Douglas, Marshall) and their common sense approach to the issue.
"Baseball is today big business that is packaged with beer, with broadcasting, and with other industries. The beneficiaries of the Federal Baseball Club decision are not the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, and Lou Gehrigs.  [it is the owners, and].. a contract which forbids anyone to practice his calling is commonly called an unreasonable restraint of trade".

No doubt there are more than a few justices who would be receptive to that argument now.   So to say it's a settled issue wouldn't be accurate.

Quote from: Foad on May 08, 2012, 09:59:58 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on May 08, 2012, 05:02:47 PM

Potentially = with a possibility of becoming actual

Remove the exemption, and the possibility of being illegal becomes actual.

I stand by my original comment.  Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean it was wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Like many web dullards you rely on condescension, being devoid of critical thinking and rhetorical skills. Killing a human being is potentially a crime. Homicide,  a crime, is illegal. Justifiable homicide, not a crime, is both legal and not illegal. Justifiable homicide is not potentially illegal, homicide is not potentially legal, and neither is potentially the other. Killing a human is potentially both. This is not a terribly subtle but seemingly it eludes you. Write back when you've worked it out.

Can't treat this like it's a permanent condition.  The anti-trust exemption for pro sports isn't set in stone, and if anything it's moving in the direction Foad advocates.  And it is logical that the legality of the court-permitted monopoly would be increasingly questioned, over time, when baseball's business activities have expanded since the '20s from from being a regional entertainment provider to the current international media conglomerate and IP licensing behemoth it is now.   There's a pattern in the decisions that show the issue will come to a head sooner or later...

Federal Baseball Club v. NL (1922) 9 - 0
Toolson v Yankees (1953) 7 - 2
Kurt Flood v Kuhn (1972) 6-3   With Powell recusing himself because he owned stock in Budweiser, owner of the Cardinals. 

And the dissents in the Flood case, were notable both by their authors (Brennan, Douglas, Marshall) and their common sense approach to the issue.
"Baseball is today big business that is packaged with beer, with broadcasting, and with other industries. The beneficiaries of the Federal Baseball Club decision are not the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, and Lou Gehrigs.  [it is the owners, and].. a contract which forbids anyone to practice his calling is commonly called an unreasonable restraint of trade".

No doubt there are more than a few justices who would be receptive to that argument now.   So to say it's a settled issue wouldn't be accurate.

Given Justice Sotomayor was one of the three Second Circuit Court Judges who overturned the District Court decision in Clarret v. NFL in 2004, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Clarett's petition for writ of certiorari in 2005 to overturn Sotomayor's decision, I'm not as confident as Desco that the anti-trust exemption allowing the NFL (or the NBA) to impose age restrictions on the draft as part of the collective bargaining process will be eliminated anytime soon (i.e., within the next 10 years).

It's interesting that the original baseball case was decided on the ground that baseball was purely a state activity: baseball wasn't subject to Sherman because it didn't effect interstate commerce. Nowadays not buying something without crossing state lines effects interstate commerce to the point that the government can force you to enter a contract to purchase a product you don't want and may not need.

That thing there on the horizon, that's Treblinka.

Not quite.   It's disingenuous to meld the issue at question and the one you allude to.   Surely you recognize the distinction between the two..   It's been 90+ years since the original baseball decision, and the interpretation of Interstate commerce has expanded tremendously.  (even critics would concede partly as a result of changes in mobility/communication) But that question of federal reach was never directly addressed in any of the subsequent cases involving pro-sports because the issue became whether congress's silence should be seen as implicit approval of baseball's anti-trust exemption.   

There's very little argument that if the baseball case was one of first impression, today, that it wouldn't be decided differently.   So it's delusive to claim a related system of oppression. 

Quote from: desco80 on May 09, 2012, 03:04:26 PM

Quote from: Foad on May 08, 2012, 09:59:58 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on May 08, 2012, 05:02:47 PM

Potentially = with a possibility of becoming actual

Remove the exemption, and the possibility of being illegal becomes actual.

I stand by my original comment.  Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean it was wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Like many web dullards you rely on condescension, being devoid of critical thinking and rhetorical skills. Killing a human being is potentially a crime. Homicide,  a crime, is illegal. Justifiable homicide, not a crime, is both legal and not illegal. Justifiable homicide is not potentially illegal, homicide is not potentially legal, and neither is potentially the other. Killing a human is potentially both. This is not a terribly subtle but seemingly it eludes you. Write back when you've worked it out.

Can't treat this like it's a permanent condition.  The anti-trust exemption for pro sports isn't set in stone, and if anything it's moving in the direction Foad advocates.  And it is logical that the legality of the court-permitted monopoly would be increasingly questioned, over time, when baseball's business activities have expanded since the '20s from from being a regional entertainment provider to the current international media conglomerate and IP licensing behemoth it is now.   There's a pattern in the decisions that show the issue will come to a head sooner or later...

Federal Baseball Club v. NL (1922) 9 - 0
Toolson v Yankees (1953) 7 - 2
Kurt Flood v Kuhn (1972) 6-3   With Powell recusing himself because he owned stock in Budweiser, owner of the Cardinals. 

And the dissents in the Flood case, were notable both by their authors (Brennan, Douglas, Marshall) and their common sense approach to the issue.
"Baseball is today big business that is packaged with beer, with broadcasting, and with other industries. The beneficiaries of the Federal Baseball Club decision are not the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, and Lou Gehrigs.  [it is the owners, and].. a contract which forbids anyone to practice his calling is commonly called an unreasonable restraint of trade".

No doubt there are more than a few justices who would be receptive to that argument now.   So to say it's a settled issue wouldn't be accurate.

Given Justice Sotomayor was one of the three Second Circuit Court Judges who overturned the District Court decision in Clarret v. NFL in 2004, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Clarett's petition for writ of certiorari in 2005 to overturn Sotomayor's decision, I'm not as confident as Desco that the anti-trust exemption allowing the NFL (or the NBA) to impose age restrictions on the draft as part of the collective bargaining process will be eliminated anytime soon (i.e., within the next 10 years).

I see what you're saying.  I based my thought that it may be overturned on the notion that someone may challenge the implied exemption for pro-sports.  I think the court would be receptive to the argument that if they intended for pro-sports to be exempt, congress could make it so, when in fact they never have.   

But in the Clarrett case didn't the 2nd Cir only consider whether the non-bargained for rules, eligibility requirements for new players, were protected by the exemption?   They didn't challenge the existence of the implied exemption I don't think.   That's where a future party might have success in my mind.
Certainly no guarantee though.   I should have been more clear in optimism - cautious, at best.  But its at least a question that eventually will need answering. 

Quote from: DFF6 on May 09, 2012, 03:45:11 PM

Quote from: desco80 on May 09, 2012, 03:04:26 PM

Quote from: Foad on May 08, 2012, 09:59:58 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on May 08, 2012, 05:02:47 PM

Potentially = with a possibility of becoming actual

Remove the exemption, and the possibility of being illegal becomes actual.

I stand by my original comment.  Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean it was wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Like many web dullards you rely on condescension, being devoid of critical thinking and rhetorical skills. Killing a human being is potentially a crime. Homicide,  a crime, is illegal. Justifiable homicide, not a crime, is both legal and not illegal. Justifiable homicide is not potentially illegal, homicide is not potentially legal, and neither is potentially the other. Killing a human is potentially both. This is not a terribly subtle but seemingly it eludes you. Write back when you've worked it out.

Can't treat this like it's a permanent condition.  The anti-trust exemption for pro sports isn't set in stone, and if anything it's moving in the direction Foad advocates.  And it is logical that the legality of the court-permitted monopoly would be increasingly questioned, over time, when baseball's business activities have expanded since the '20s from from being a regional entertainment provider to the current international media conglomerate and IP licensing behemoth it is now.   There's a pattern in the decisions that show the issue will come to a head sooner or later...

Federal Baseball Club v. NL (1922) 9 - 0
Toolson v Yankees (1953) 7 - 2
Kurt Flood v Kuhn (1972) 6-3   With Powell recusing himself because he owned stock in Budweiser, owner of the Cardinals. 

And the dissents in the Flood case, were notable both by their authors (Brennan, Douglas, Marshall) and their common sense approach to the issue.
"Baseball is today big business that is packaged with beer, with broadcasting, and with other industries. The beneficiaries of the Federal Baseball Club decision are not the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, and Lou Gehrigs.  [it is the owners, and].. a contract which forbids anyone to practice his calling is commonly called an unreasonable restraint of trade".

No doubt there are more than a few justices who would be receptive to that argument now.   So to say it's a settled issue wouldn't be accurate.

Given Justice Sotomayor was one of the three Second Circuit Court Judges who overturned the District Court decision in Clarret v. NFL in 2004, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Clarett's petition for writ of certiorari in 2005 to overturn Sotomayor's decision, I'm not as confident as Desco that the anti-trust exemption allowing the NFL (or the NBA) to impose age restrictions on the draft as part of the collective bargaining process will be eliminated anytime soon (i.e., within the next 10 years).

I see what you're saying.  I based my thought that it may be overturned on the notion that someone may challenge the implied exemption for pro-sports.  I think the court would be receptive to the argument that if they intended for pro-sports to be exempt, congress could make it so, when in fact they never have.   

But in the Clarrett case didn't the 2nd Cir only consider whether the non-bargained for rules, eligibility requirements for new players, were protected by the exemption?   They didn't challenge the existence of the implied exemption I don't think.   That's where a future party might have success in my mind.
Certainly no guarantee though.   I should have been more clear in optimism - cautious, at best.  But its at least a question that eventually will need answering.

I hear you Desco.   I haven't read the decision in a while, but I think the 2nd Cir. disagreed with Judge Scheindlin's ruling that the age restriction was not a mandatory  part of the collective bargaining protections (e.g., wages, hours, conditions of employment, etc.).  In fact, I don't think the age restriction is even contained in the NFL's collective bargaining agreement with the players union.  However,  the 2nd Circuit was apparently determined to protect the sanctity of the collective bargaining rights of unions, so they inferred that the collective bargaining rights of the NFL players union included the age restriction, and hence entitled to the anti-trust exemption.  I think the decision was a reach to say the least.

Not quite.   It's disingenuous to meld the issue at question and the one you allude to.   Surely you recognize the distinction between the two..   It's been 90+ years since the original baseball decision, and the interpretation of Interstate commerce has expanded tremendously.  (even critics would concede partly as a result of changes in mobility/communication) But that question of federal reach was never directly addressed in any of the subsequent cases involving pro-sports because the issue became whether congress's silence should be seen as implicit approval of baseball's anti-trust exemption.   

There's very little argument that if the baseball case was one of first impression, today, that it wouldn't be decided differently.   So it's delusive to claim a related system of oppression.

I don't know exactly what distinctions and allusions you're referring to. If you're asking whether I can tell the difference between Comerica Park and Chełmno then the answer is yes. If you're talking about the reference to the healthcare law then you missed the gist. I wasn't drawing an analogy between baseball and Clarett and the affordable care act. My point was that merely 100 years ago the government was loathe to interfere in private contractual relationships that clearly implicated interstate commerce, whereas nowadays the government is eager to mandate private contractual relationships that clearly do not implicate interstate commerce. And it's not far down the slippery slope from that expansion of federal power that fascism lies. If the government can force private citizens to enter into private contracts with other private citizens then it can do anything. When governments can do anything, they build Auschwitz.