Star One Smart Blog's

Just because he's the starting Quarterback for the New Orleans Saints doesn't mean he can't have an opinion. Or, as an executive on the NFLPA, join in with other player's organizations in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

Drew's editorial is written opposing the NFL's desire to have the Supreme Court expand a recent ruling against a ballcap manufacturer not named Reebok to affirm the NFL's existence (being comprised of 32 teams and the owners) as a single entity that would be exempt from antitrust laws. Drew serves on the executive committee of the NFLPA, and the player's association is dead set against giving such 'single entity' bloc powers to NFL ownership...

The NFL originally won the case because the lower courts decided that, when it comes to marketing hats and gear, the 32 teams in the league act like one big company, a "single entity," and such an entity can't illegally conspire with itself to restrain trade. The NFL-Reebok deal is worth a lot of money, and fans pay for it: If you want to show support for your team by buying an official hat, it now costs $10 more than before the exclusive arrangement.

Amazingly, after the NFL won the case, it asked the Supreme Court to dramatically expand the ruling and determine that the teams act as a single entity not only for marketing hats and gear, but for pretty much everything the league does. 

What possibly could ownership do with expanded 'single entity' antitrust powers? Drew paints worst-case scenario dooms-and-glooms...

What might the owners do? They could agree to end or severely restrict free agency, continue to enter into exclusive agreements that will further raise prices on merchandise, lock coaches into salary scales that don't reward them when they're promoted and set higher ticket prices (including preventing teams from competing through ticket discounts).

...

At the moment, the NFL Players Association and team owners are negotiating over a new collective bargaining agreement, and the threat of a lockout looms over the 2011 season. Historically, players have made significant gains, such as free agency, by challenging the NFL on antitrust grounds. If the Supreme Court rules that the league's 32 organizations constitute a single entity that is exempt from antitrust laws, players will lose this important leverage.

I agree with Drew Brees and the NFLPA to an extent; the players should have a means to make plenty of money, but the owners are the risk-takers and it's best to allow them to have some antitrust status. I doubt that in the high-stakes world of professional sports there would be a 'season-ending lockout' in 2011; such a travesty would bring maddened politicians together as never could such mundane interests as healthcare or overseas wars. We will NOT be without our football, y'hear?

But it's a good thing to have Drew Brees concerning himself with this matter right now. Whatever takes his attention away from his upcoming home game against the defending NFC Champion Arizona Cardinals, who are fresh off that epic victory over upstart Green Bay.

And being 7 point 'dawgs with no defense to speak of, we'll need some distractions.

Maybe George Bush could send another hurricane...?

---