NFL Under Fire
I've been sitting here for the past week listening, as have all loyal football fans, watching and anticipating the next move in Maurice Clarett's (RB, Ohio State) temper tantrum, hoping some way, some how this is going to start making sense. There are so many issues wrapped up in this giant snowball, it's hard to know where to start. I have been reading for days and have a headache. I do not envy the judge who must eventually decide on the injunction. It will be difficult in the extreme to render a judgment solely on whether or not the NFL is in violation of US Anti-trust laws when so many other issues are being used as either smokescreens or adding fuel to the fire. How is this a racial issue? How is this an exploitation issue? Why must the NFL defend a rule enacted to protect the health and well being of young football players? Why is he still whining? O.k., strike that last question. But seriously, I'm annoyed and offended by this whole process; by the sheer arrogance Clarett has displayed throughout.
The situation began with some minor indiscretions at Ohio State. A small matter of "extra help" with his studies (read: cheating) and "slightly" exaggerating the value of stolen goods (read: lying), that may not have warranted the athletic department's season long suspension. I find it odd that they are willing to oust their golden boy over something so trivial. That's issue number one. Certainly suspend him; he done wrong, but all season? That seems illogical and certainly worthy of investigation, but not here and not right now.
Regretfully, Clarett is far from contrite. He chose not to "keep his nose clean" for a month and then ask for an appeal. He instead opted for fame and fortune, his name in lights - a career in the NFL! Slight roadblock there, he's not eligible for the draft because of the NFL ruling that states players are not eligible for the draft unless they have completed three years of college or it's three years past the player's high school graduation date. That would be issued number two. After some consideration, he decides to petition the NFL for eligibility in the 2004 draft. The two parties meet and the NFL says they'll get back to the Clarett family. Without waiting for further response, the lawsuit was filed in the Southern District Court of New York suing the NFL for violating anti-trust laws. I'd call that issue number three. And then comes the Complaint. Have you guys seen this thing? Here's my personal favorite listed under the title FACTS: "... 31. Had Clarett been eligible for the 2003 Draft, it is almost certain he would have been selected in the beginning of the First Round and would have agreed to a contract and signing bonus worth millions of dollars..." Anyone have a dictionary to look up the word "fact"? There other issues brought to light in the Complaint; serious issues that should be addressed by the NFL. A vague and imprecise Collective Bargaining Agreement that does not protect the NFL rule being one of the more serious ones.
From a legal standpoint, the NFL is on shaky ground. The ramifications of a decision favorable to Clarett deserve serious consideration. If the matter is decided on the basis of anti-trust laws alone, the courts seriously undermine the NFL's right to determine and regulate eligibility requirements. The rule in question was established to protect the safety of players after similar draft situations resulted in substantial injuries. The NFL was called to account for its decisions then and held responsible for the consequences of its actions. I argue that you cannot hold someone responsible and then take away his or her right to govern that responsibility. To call it unlawful or contend that is in some form discriminatory (Count One, 35. The Rule is a group boycott and a concerted refusal to deal with individuals such as Clarett) renders the NFL powerless to protect itself against litigation and claims of irresponsible actions. It would be like insisting a business provide Workman's Compensation yet disallow any regulation of safety procedures. If the rule is flawed or does not accomplish its desired intent, it should be reviewed and possibly revised. Look at the case history of Curt Flood and the St. Louis Cardinals. MLB's infamous reserve clause gave the team owners the right to renew the contract each year; in other words, they owned the contract, and consequently the player until such time the decided not to renew or trade said player. Flood challenged his trade to the Phillies on the grounds that the clause violated anti-trust laws and the 13th amendment. Ultimately, the Flood lost his battle. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of MLB, but the issue was far from over. The team owners were forced revamp their policies and free agency in baseball was born. In this similar situation, decades later, would it not behoove the NFL and the NFLPA to sit down and discuss whether or not the rule satisfies the intended goal? If not, an agreement should be reached by negotiations between the players and the NFL - not in a courtroom.
Wait a minute! Clarett is not an NFL player and should not be able to mandate changes in the approved form of negotiations between the NFL and it's players. Let's address for a moment the questions that must be answered for the injunction:
? Will Clarett suffer irreparable damage if his situation is not remedied immediately?
(Absolutely not. Unless, we are now defining irreparable damage in monetary terms. And if we are talking about a couple million dollars, next year when he has a $20 million contract, do you think he'll miss that first $2 mill? -gd)
? Does Clarett have a good case? Not necessarily a winning one, but a strong one.
(No. Points 15, 16, 17, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 & 31 are either erroneous or misleading that can be successfully argued by Defendant attorneys. In fact, the only allegation that holds any water is the violation of anti-trust laws to which the NFL is subject. The Collective Bargaining Agreement, however, is not as a union subject to those same laws. The NFL will argue that although the exact wording may not appear in the text of the CBA, the rule is understood inherent in the language of the document. Upshaw, the NFLPA's Executive Director, has publicly stated his concurrence. -gd)
? Balance of Harms -- Is Clarett more harmed by this rule than the NFL is?
(No. I honestly don't think so. No one is saying that Clarett cannot play for the NFL. No one is denying his talent. Some may argue that he is losing out on millions of dollars by not being able to be drafted in the 2004 season, but I disagree. He cannot lose out on something he is not entitled to. And if he is entitled, is not every other person who has ever been eligible for the NFL draft, but been required to wait the mandatory 3 years? I believe the harm to be much more costly for the NFL, for their reputation, for possible additional legislation as a result of the courts decision. I don't doubt that this rule, if declared unlawful, will be replaced with another version to try to maintain some control over eligibility requirements and their own responsibility for the health and safety of players. There's also the cost of mounting their defense in this current matter which will be undoubtedly monstrous. -gd
? Would the injunction be in the best interest of the public good?
(Other than being a juicy bone of gossip for football fans at large, I don't see how the public good would be affected either way. When I think of public good, I think of healthcare, lack of poverty, government-assisted programs - not football. -gd)
(http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1622080)
So my headache has reached migraine proportions and I still have a lot to say. I want to talk about the "free farm issue" and I want to talk about Rep. John Conyers D-Mich and his comment "Like a lot of young kids, he's made mistakes, but he has been the subject of an Orwellian procedure where a university acting to protect its own hide (has) acted as Maurice's prosecutor, judge and jury," Conyers said in a statement. "Now, like (baseball free-agency pioneer) Curt Flood before him, Maurice is . . . challenging a draft rule which the league tells us is designed to help kids, but really seems to institutionalize a farm system that reaps huge financial rewards for the colleges and pros; and operates primarily at the expense of African American teenagers." And I want to talk about Spencer Haywood and the NBA, but not now, not tonight.
|