Does the NFL really need a draft?

[youngosu]

2 hours ago, Non-Issue said:

I’m not sure if I am really changing the argument. It’s not like the viability of a sports league in the US doesn’t hinge, to a fair degree, on how competitive the league is.

Teams that are perpetual dogs tend to struggle to fill seats, sell merch and get decent add revenue. And that is with the major US sports leagues fighting tooth and nail to maintain a competitive balance. To include revenue sharing. If you lose that competitive balance (and I think the NFL would if there was no salary cap, no revenue sharing, no rookie cap and no draft) I think it would endanger the viability of the league.

Who said anything about losing revenue sharing? That existed long before the salary cap and could easily exist long after any changes and that is the primary force of providing competitive balance. As to the rest of your assertions, I simply disagree. America loves a dynasty rather its because they want them to lose or want them to win, America tunes in when the dynasties are playing. Competitive balance in leagues is significantly overrated. 

The Cowboys have more fans than the Jaguars rather they are good or not. The Cubs have more fans than the White Sox regardless of who is good and that is in the same city. 

Plenty of bad teams make lots of money (Redskins, 49ers, Bears, and Jets all of whom rarely make the playoffs are top 10 when it comes to revenue in the NFL). 

We will have to agree to disagree on how much competitive balance matters to sports fans. I think its pretty damn meaningless to be honest. Fans are quite good at adjusting expectations. Its why Mariner fans (of which I am one) still talk about 1995 as if the team won the World Series when they lost in the ALCS. 

 

And at the end of the day I think the draft has very little to do with keeping competitive balance, it exists for 1 reason and 1 reason only and that is so owners can pay players less money. That is it. Its the only reason any league has a draft. Its all about the finances. 

[TXsteeler]

9 hours ago, youngosu said:

Not only would this be unethical

How? How can it possibly be that I CREATE an opportunity that didn't exist before and yet it's unethical?

9 hours ago, youngosu said:

And players don't "choose" to enter the draft

Yes they do. Most of them don't. They have no inherent right to work for the NFL or even to play professional Football for that matter. If they don't want to go to the draft they can go to a different league or they can just not play football.

[youngosu]

22 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

Yes they do. Most of them don't. They have no inherent right to work for the NFL or even to play professional Football for that matter. If they don't want to go to the draft they can go to a different league or they can just not play football.

No, they can't because the NFL acts as a cartel and has no competitors for them to choose to play for. You are right that they can choose to not play professional football but that is NOT an anti-trust defense. And they don't work for the NFL, if the NFL was signing players the draft could be part of said contract, that isn't the case. The NFL doesn't employee any players. 

And its still not a "choose" to enter the draft. Its required. They can't negotiate rather they want to or not. They will automatically be entered into the draft after their college eligibility runs out

22 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

How? How can it possibly be that I CREATE an opportunity that didn't exist before and yet it's unethical?

Fine, it may not be unethical but it would be a violation of anti-trust law the way you described it. Creating a new opportunity doesn't exempt you from anti-trust laws. 

Now, if you set it up as a single entity and each individual player chose to sign a contract agreeing to be drafted and were only drafted AFTER signing that contract you'd be fine. But that isn't what you claimed nor is it what the NFL does. The NFL forces people who are not yet employees to enter a draft and have their negotiating rights limited because they are only allowed to negotiate with 1 of the 32 businesses playing football. That is an anti-trust violation only legal because of a collective bargaining agreement with a union that the players being drafted are not even members of yet. Which is why judges have indicated that if a player chose to sue the NFLPA (instead of the NFL) they'd probably win because the NFLPA has no right to limit the economic freedom of non-members. 

[Calvert28]

On 4/16/2018 at 11:56 AM, everlong said:

Apples to oranges. NFL has a salary cap. You can only have 53 players on your roster. Would you be willing to spend big bucks on an unproven player?

Teams traded up like crazy in the draft up until the cap max during the 2011 draft. So no I don't think they mind.

[Raves]

On 4/25/2018 at 11:08 AM, youngosu said:

On 4/24/2018 at 4:48 PM, TXsteeler said:

If I were to win the lottery and create my own small sports league with a few other investors where players compete at some stupid sport like doing tricks on a skateboard while bouncing on a trampoline, and all the people who wanted to play were all ready to sign until I said that we would have a draft for parity and to make money and build our sport, would that really be unethical to them?

Not only would this be unethical it would be a violation of anti-trust laws and you and your fellow investors would be setting yourself up to be sued and lose in court. 

On 4/24/2018 at 4:48 PM, TXsteeler said:

An opportunity that didn't exist elsewhere is now available to them but at a cost, so it's unethical? Is it unethical that I can't choose to work for a company in my hometown if they don't have a location in that hometown?

Apples to oranges, now if there was a company in your hometown but another company 1000 miles away held your rights and you were not allowed to negotiate with the company in your home town and only allowed to negotiate with the company 1000 miles away it would be unethical and that is what the NFL is doing with the draft.

On 4/24/2018 at 4:48 PM, TXsteeler said:

No it isn't. If a person wants to play for the NFL, they can choose to enter the draft, it costs them nothing AFAIK. If they don't like the results, they can go elsewhere. They can go attempt to sign with a different league. Football players provide nothing of tangible value to society

And this shows your real motivation, you are jealous that society values football players more than you and think football players should lose their right to bargain freely because of it. The NFL is made up of 32 individual businesses and operates as a cartel, using that cartel power to artificially limit a players right to negotiate with all 32 businesses is absolutely unethical. And players don't "choose" to enter the draft, they are automatically entered into the draft. T

On 4/24/2018 at 4:48 PM, TXsteeler said:

Is it unethical that actors have to move out to Cali to shoot movies?

Not even close to the same thing, studios do not hold drafts nor would it be legal for them too do so. An actor has the right to negotiate with each studio and decide which studio they want to work for. Will Smith isn't limited to only making movies with Columbia Pictures because they drafted him, he can make a movie with any and all companies. Just because most are located in California is irrelevant to the conversation. 

I'm sort of with TXsteeler on this one.  I'm a software developer, if I say go to Google and say, I want a job at your San Francisco offices, they say that they'd hire me but not for San Francisco, I'd have to go to Nowhere, Alaska if I wanted a job, is that not the same as the NFL?  Football players apply for jobs at the NFL, which they don't have to accept if they don't want to, and the NFL says whether or not they will hire them and if so which office branch they will work at.  Even the individual teams inside of software development team can sometimes fight over individuals they are interested in having on their team.  I did an internship and at the end of the internship the person in charge of the team said that if I applied for another internship the next summer that he would fight to bring me back to his team instead of me moving to another team which was customary.

I'm also not guaranteed a job just because I have the training in my field, or even the city that I want to be at.  No company is required to hire me to work as a software developer, much like football players, so either I have to accept a job that is offered to me or look for a job doing something else.

[youngosu]

34 minutes ago, Raves said:

On 4/25/2018 at 8:08 AM, youngosu said:

 

I'm sort of with TXsteeler on this one.  I'm a software developer, if I say go to Google and say, I want a job at your San Francisco offices, they say that they'd hire me but not for San Francisco, I'd have to go to Nowhere, Alaska if I wanted a job, is that not the same as the NFL?  

No, its not the same as the NFL. The equal would be if google drafted you and you no longer had the right to negotiate with facebook for a job. 

FYI, this basically happened (not a draft but tech companies colluded to prevent hiring employees working for other tech companies) and the tech companies were sued, lost in court, and had to pay damages.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/. 

 

Football players do NOT apply for jobs with the NFL. The NFL doesn't employee any players. Football players apply for jobs with 32 NFL football teams and those 32 NFL football teams employee football players. That is the point you and others continue to miss. Its not one company (the NFL) hiring employees and deciding where players play. Its 32 separate companies colluding to limit the options of said players to only negotiate with one of those companies. 

I honestly don't understand why that is so confusing to so many since its the clear reality. 

[Heinz D.]

13 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Football players do NOT apply for jobs with the NFL. The NFL doesn't employee any players. Football players apply for jobs with 32 NFL football teams and those 32 NFL football teams employee football players. That is the point you and others continue to miss. Its not one company (the NFL) hiring employees and deciding where players play. Its 32 separate companies colluding to limit the options of said players to only negotiate with one of those companies. 

Are you sure about that? 

[Raves]

5 minutes ago, youngosu said:

No, its not the same as the NFL. The equal would be if google drafted you and you no longer had the right to negotiate with facebook for a job. 

FYI, this basically happened (not a draft but tech companies colluded to prevent hiring employees working for other tech companies) and the tech companies were sued, lost in court, and had to pay damages.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/. 

 

Football players do NOT apply for jobs with the NFL. The NFL doesn't employee any players. Football players apply for jobs with 32 NFL football teams and those 32 NFL football teams employee football players. That is the point you and others continue to miss. Its not one company (the NFL) hiring employees and deciding where players play. Its 32 separate companies colluding to limit the options of said players to only negotiate with one of those companies. 

I honestly don't understand why that is so confusing to so many since its the clear reality. 

I guess I didn't see your other post as I was writing mine and I guess I just assumed that all the teams feel under the NFL as a single employer in some sense.  So all the NFL would really need to do then is to bring all the teams under 1 entity, for legal senses, and it would be legal then?

Don't mean to get you upset but I think some of us didn't exactly realize that the teams didn't exactly fall under 1 entity as all the NFL rules were applied unilaterally across all the teams much like policies at a company and their various branches.

Now outside of the draft being illegal based on how it is setup, thank you @youngosu for explaining patiently (sort of), I think a more interesting way to do the draft would be instead of teams getting a specific pick, players are auctioned off for points, the worse you are the more points you receive.  Obviously the overall system for deciding which players are put up for action when would need to be figured out, but would make things really interesting.

[Buc Ball]

3 minutes ago, youngosu said:

No, its not the same as the NFL. The equal would be if google drafted you and you no longer had the right to negotiate with facebook for a job. 

FYI, this basically happened (not a draft but tech companies colluded to prevent hiring employees working for other tech companies) and the tech companies were sued, lost in court, and had to pay damages.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/. 

 

Football players do NOT apply for jobs with the NFL. The NFL doesn't employee any players. Football players apply for jobs with 32 NFL football teams and those 32 NFL football teams employee football players. That is the point you and others continue to miss. Its not one company (the NFL) hiring employees and deciding where players play. Its 32 separate companies colluding to limit the options of said players to only negotiate with one of those companies. 

I honestly don't understand why that is so confusing to so many since its the clear reality. 

Do you apply for a job in the NFL though? If you’re draft eligible, you’re draft eligible.

Besides, you can negotiate. You simply state that you wouldn’t sign with any team that drafts you and that you want to become a UDFA. It worked for Lael Collins and he had his pick of teams immediately after the draft.

If you want out your contract, you hold out and demand your release or a trade to a particular team. If none of that works, go play in Canada for the year.

Overall, you know the rules ahead of time with the NFL, so you go in knowing fine well that the league operates a draft system. It’s done for the purposes of trying to create parity in a sports league.

The tech industry restricting employees from working elsewhere is a false comparison since there’s no expectation that unreasonable restrictions on employment will exist in that industry. If there were unreasonable restrictions, these are easily defeatable in court.

Also, consider what the NFL is. It’s 32 franchises. The ownership structure isn’t as simple as 32 owners owning 32 separate legal entities since I’d expect the NFL has some kind of interest in each of the franchises. So on that basis, it could be argued that the draft system is more akin to a parent company (the NFL) allowing its branches (the franchises) to select new employees through a draft system, the order of which is based on prior year performance.

 

[youngosu]

31 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Are you sure about that? 

Yep. 

 

7 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

Do you apply for a job in the NFL though? If you’re draft eligible, you’re draft eligible.

Besides, you can negotiate. You simply state that you wouldn’t sign with any team that drafts you and that you want to become a UDFA. It worked for Lael Collins and he had his pick of teams immediately after the draft.

If you want out your contract, you hold out and demand your release or a trade to a particular team. If none of that works, go play in Canada for the year.

Overall, you know the rules ahead of time with the NFL, so you go in knowing fine well that the league operates a draft system. It’s done for the purposes of trying to create parity in a sports league.

The tech industry restricting employees from working elsewhere is a false comparison since there’s no expectation that unreasonable restrictions on employment will exist in that industry. If there were unreasonable restrictions, these are easily defeatable in court.

 

And the draft would be illegal in court too if the NFLPA didn't agree to it and as I've mentioned multiple times the courts have given opinions making it quite clear that if a player sued the NFLPA over the draft they'd very likely win.

9 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

Also, consider what the NFL is. It’s 32 franchises. The ownership structure isn’t as simple as 32 owners owning 32 separate legal entities since I’d expect the NFL has some kind of interest in each of the franchises. So on that basis, it could be argued that the draft system is more akin to a parent company (the NFL) allowing its branches (the franchises) to select new employees through a draft system, the order of which is based on prior year performance.

That doesn't make it legal, If McDonald's decided to draft employees and a a McDonald's franchise owner in San Francisco tried block a McDonald's franchise owner in Oakland from negotiating with a potential employee because they owned their rights they'd lose in court instantly. 

And the NFL has no interest in any of the franchises. They are wholly owned by their owner just like a McDonald's franchise. 

[kingseanjohn]

4 minutes ago, youngosu said:

And the draft would be illegal in court too if the NFLPA didn't agree to it and as I've mentioned multiple times the courts have given opinions making it quite clear that if a player sued the NFLPA over the draft they'd very likely win.

Which courts/rulings?

[mse326]

I don't complaining about rookies being able to make big bucks. If that is their market value then that is what they should get. That's literally how it works in every other no sports business.

With a salary cap and the rookies being actual FA no team can completely load up on the top ones. And plenty of players will go to lesser teams. Playing time quicker, more money possible. There are only so many jobs, they'll take it.

If anything parity may get better. Bad teams also usually have large cap space. They can get a couple of great/good prospects instead of just one. Many of the contenders won't even have the space to get anyone that would be a 1st round pick let alone a high first.

I'm for anything that give player more options and the availability to actually be like everyone else. Get what you can from who you want.

[Heinz D.]

6 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Yep. 

How do players apply for the draft? 

[Buc Ball]

4 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Yep. 

 

And the draft would be illegal in court too if the NFLPA didn't agree to it and as I've mentioned multiple times the courts have given opinions making it quite clear that if a player sued the NFLPA over the draft they'd very likely win.

That doesn't make it legal, If McDonald's decided to draft employees and a a McDonald's franchise owner in San Francisco tried block a McDonald's franchise owner in Oakland from negotiating with a potential employee because they owned their rights they'd lose in court instantly. 

And the NFL has no interest in any of the franchises. They are wholly owned by their owner just like a McDonald's franchise. 

You love a straw man.

Which legal opinion was the point about a player defeating the NFL draft if they challenged it?

Also, what’s your source for the NFL having no interest in each franchise? The owners may own the holdco, but does the NFL have a right over all or some of the assets of the franchise? Genuinely curious on this one, since google didn’t give me the answers when I had a quick look.

Key point to note re McDonalds: a franchisee can be stripped of the franchise by McDonalds. Without looking into it, that implies some kind of interest is held by the franchisor over certain assets (ie, the license). The NFL could be the same.

[youngosu]

21 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said:

Which courts/rulings?

Leon Wood vs. the NBA. 

Wood challenged the NBA draft and lost because of the CBA and only because of the CBA. You can go read the opinion for yourself. 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/602/525/1633990/

15 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

You love a straw man.

Which legal opinion was the point about a player defeating the NFL draft if they challenged it?

Not a straw man. The draft is only legal due to the NFL/NFLPA collective bargaining agreement. That is 100% uncontested fact. They are simply lucky no one has challenged it yet. If the NFLPA de-certifies tomorrow the draft is instantly illegal. 

 

15 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

Also, what’s your source for the NFL having no interest in each franchise? The owners may own the holdco, but does the NFL have a right over all or some of the assets of the franchise? Genuinely curious on this one, since google didn’t give me the answers when I had a quick look.

Key point to note re McDonalds: a franchisee can be stripped of the franchise by McDonalds. Without looking into it, that implies some kind of interest is held by the franchisor over certain assets (ie, the license). The NFL could be the same.

NFL teams and or owners probably can be kicked out if they choose to not follow the bylaws of the league (just like a McDonald's owner) but they'd still own the football team unless bought out by the league or another owner. If the league took ownership of a team (it's happened in the NBA) than that one team's players would be employees of the league but that is the only way that ever could happen. 

McDonald's does own the land under their stores, and the owner rents that land so that is what McDonald's has over its franchisees, the NFL does not own the land used by its teams.