NFL – Judge Issues Injunction Against Lockout, But That’s Hardly The Final Word

Things are getting very hairy in the battle between millionaires and billionaires.

And the millionaires are the sympathetic figures, at least for the time being.

On Monday, a U.S. District Court judge ordered an injunction against the NFL owners locking out the players, in essence ruling that the lockout caused irreparable harm to the players and prevent them from making a living, while the NFL would not be faced with an undue burden by having its actions enjoined.

The NFL asked Judge Susan Richard Nelson for an immediate stay, on the basis of their contention that the federal courts did not have any jurisdiction on a labor dispute.

Their statement:

"We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal."

The judge has also been approached by the players for further clarification, since some of them have been denied access to the practice facilities. And what the judge has done is bought herself another day to consider the motion for a stay, as well as the players’ response to it. The NFL will wait for a decision by the judge before filing the appeal, and in the meantime, it is not likely that most players who go to the team facilities will be allowed to work out, nor will any normal "football activities" be taking place.

DeMaurice Smith called it "petty" that some players were turned away from practice facilities. Smith brought a new combativeness to the NFL Players Association, in stark contrast to his predecessor, Gene Upshaw.

Nothing is going to be cut and dried for a while, and although the judges’ ruling was obviously considered to be a victory for the players, this scenario will not be completely played out for months. Yes, there is the possibility that the 2011 season could be delayed, if it gets underway at all.

A key to all of this was the breakdown of talks for a new collective bargaining agreement in March, leading directly to the decertification of the union, which took place right before the existing CBA expired, and allowed players to sue the league on an individual basis on anti-trust grounds. The league had been waiting for a possible favorable ruling in a Supreme Court case last year – American Needle v. National Football League, in which it was seeking a blanket anti-trust exemption on the basis that it was a "single entity," but that was denied.

The decertification seems cosmetic, in a sense; a short-term ploy. And don’t think the NFL has not taken every opportunity to call it a sham. But for the moment, the NFLPA has renounced its right to collectively bargain, and it also eliminates any of its authority to regulate agents for NFL players. The NBA players are prepared to go the same route, if necessary.

The day after decertification, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Tom Brady were among the marquee players who filed an anti-trust suit against the league, seeking the injunction that was granted on Monday. There was another interesting co-plaintiff – Von Miller, the Texas A&M linebacker, who has not even been drafted by the NFL yet, but expects to be among the top ten picks.

With the union decertified, judges cannot tell the individual players filing anti-trust actions that they must achieve their ends through collective bargaining, since there is now no longer an entity to do that for them. The lawsuits could eat at the limited anti-trust protection the league currently enjoys. The NFL has lost some notable anti-trust cases in the past, notably against Raiders owner Al Davis and the United States Footbal League.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sounded an alarmist tone in an op-ed that was published in the Wall Street Journal. "To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves)," he wrote. "But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer."

Maybe yes, maybe no. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll get it all sorted out without having to destroy the relationship between the fans and the business of professional football in the process.