Blalock v. LPGA page 424 Blalock is claiming concerted action to boycott her. Players were making this decision, and they would benefit with her not playing golf. Kapp v. NFL page 432 Kapp played for Vikings as QB. Claimed that the NFL const. and by laws and uniform contract all contain restrictions to trade. (None of these were agreed to by players union.) Rozelle rule when team gets free agent, former team gets compensation. Commissioner decides on – compensation if not agreed. Commissioner is looking out generally for owners, not as much players. Page 435 Kapp argues that this is a per se (boycott) violation. As a fallback, he argues it is unreasonable, there are far more restrictions than necessary to achieve goals. NFL says not per se, should be protected by collective bargaining exception. Court says not per se. Page 438 Even rule of reason, Kapp gets summary judgment. feels that while there may be some need of player restraint to provide competitive balance, these rules are going FAR beyond what is necessary to achieve that. Anti-trust exemptions one thing to have 32 NFL teams make rules but if you elect union reps. to make – agreement with NFL, that is different. Mackey v. NFL page 440 Page 449 says no per se rule. Page 451-52, rationale for no per se because of the unique nature of NFL. (Modern rule of reason does not require restrictive method) QUESTION CONFIRM Page 453 If team is deterred from getting player or deters to pay salary because of the Rozelle rule (because team is concerned about compensation for former team) then hurting competition. Artificially affect demand curve is a bad idea. Adverse competitive affect is clear. Under rule of reason, court recognizes that when you invest in commissioner (a non-neutral party) the power to determine what team has to give up to former team to get free agent, that is a problem.
Blalock v. LPGA page 424 Blalock is claiming concerted action to boycott her. Players were making this decision, and they would benefit with her not playing golf. Kapp v. NFL page 432 Kapp played for Vikings as QB. Claimed that the NFL const. and by laws and uniform contract all contain restrictions to trade. (None of these were agreed to by players union.) Rozelle rule – when team gets free agent, former team gets compensation. Commissioner decides on compensation if not agreed. Commissioner is looking out generally for owners, not as much players. Page 435 Kapp argues that this is a per se (boycott) violation. As a fallback, he argues it is unreasonable, there are far more restrictions than necessary to achieve goals. NFL says not per se, should be protected by collective bargaining exception. Court says not per se. Page 438 Even rule of reason, Kapp gets summary judgment. feels that while there may be some need of player restraint to provide competitive balance, these rules are going FAR beyond what is necessary to achieve that. Anti-trust exemptions – one thing to have 32 NFL teams make rules but if you elect union reps. to make agreement with NFL, that is different. Mackey v. NFL page 440 Page 449 says no per se rule. Page 451-52, rationale for no per se because of the unique nature of NFL. (Modern rule of reason does not require restrictive method) QUESTION CONFIRM Page 453 If team is deterred from getting player or deters to pay salary because of the Rozelle rule (because team is concerned about compensation for former team) then hurting competition. Artificially affect demand curve is a bad idea. Adverse competitive affect is clear. Under rule of reason, court recognizes that when you invest in commissioner (a non-neutral party) the power to determine what team has to give up to former team to get free agent, that is a problem.