除了她的禁令，这结束了1994年的棒球击（这一点，看理查德·桑多米尔的作品in the NYT today), Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor played a significant role in the recent Maurice Clarett case. Clarett, of course, was a college football star who was running out of chances in the NCAA, and sued the NFL to overturn the eligibility rules which precluded a sophomore from entering the draft.
Here's my commentary on Sotomayor's ruling at the time, along with a renewed link to the decision itself. TSE's old posts have lost their formatting over the years (nice one, blogger!) so I've copied the content in it's entirety below.
----------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
3-0到NFL
在NFLwon its呼吁在Clarett情况。格雷格·斯基德莫尔在体育法博客发现的决定令人满意。我觉得这两个照明和回避。
Judge Sotomayor's decision references a number of cases upholding the exemption of restrictions in collective bargaining agreements from antitrust, both in sports and elsewhere. The discussion is authoritative and informative. It notes that the exemption does not apply when the restriction imposes harm on business competitors who are not party to the contract. This is not the case here: the harm is imposed on an prospective employee who is not party to the contract.
The court points out that CBAs encompass numerous issues, and that selecting one clause for antitrust scrutiny may upset the balance of compromises among employers and employees. It is not obvious to me that this concern should protect an anticompetitive restriction - simply address the issues without violating the law! Nevertheless the sanctity and primacy of collective bargaining to this court is readily apparent in the decision, making it clear that an antitrust challenge faces heavy going. The decision clearly implies - and the 2nd circuit has said this before in reference to the NBA draft - that if the NFL wants to cap salaries, the union can offset the negative effect on their wages by limiting the wages paid to future players in subsequent drafts. Prospective players are clearly harmed by this, but the restriction passes muster under the 2nd court's interpretation of the law.
The decision is evasive on two major counts. First, apart from mentioning the NFL's claim that the rule protects young players from physical harm, the decision wastes nary a sentence on the issue. The reason is clear - since labor law trumps antitrust, there is no need to judge the reasonableness of the restraint. Second, in announcing this in unabashed terms, the court tiptoes around the real issue here:
In the context of this collective bargaining relationship, the NFL and its players union can agree that an employee will not be hired or considered for employment几乎任何理由[emphasis added] so long as they do not violate federal laws such as those prohibiting unfair labor practices ... or discrimination.
这是歧视性的限制是显而易见的。But youth is apparently not a protected class, unlike minorities or the elderly. I find this odd.
Not all courts allow collective bargaining as much latitude as the 2nd circuit. In the Mackey case, the "Rozelle rule" on free agent compensation was struck down by the eighth circuit. Following Supreme Court precedent, one of the tests applied was whether the restriction "primarily affects only the parties to the collective bargaining relationship." This test clearly conflicts with the approach of the 2nd circuit to labor problems. The decision simply notes that the approaches disagree, and not surprisingly, the decision in Clarett sticks to the precedent adhered to in prior cases in their circuit. An appeal to the Supreme Court might establish which approach they prefer, and thus clarify matters.
我不是与劳动法索托马约尔法官倾心，而且我不是高兴，决定斯基德莫尔。通过休息所以完全靠“劳动法胜过反垄断法”的基础上，上诉法院躲开的情况下，最有趣的问题。尽管如此，决定显然是exposited和翔实的，所以它会去阅读名单上我的体育经济学课。yabo2018体育下载
----------------------------------------------------------
