Challenging the 20 yr old rule

[Lascar78]

I know man.

I know some people think stern is some sort of evil mastermind, but even if you think that, you have to admit that the man knows what he's doing. He knows this is bulletproof.

When clarett got the judgement in his favor, Stern came out the next day and said that it was a mistake and he was 100% sure it would be overturned. Surely enough, it was. There is no issue here, it's legit and any challenge will lose in no time

Even though this rule might screw us, I think it's definitely better for the league. This is supposed to be a grown men's league, not a developmental league. One year out of high school doesn't seem like much to ask for me

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Well I know I'm not going to win this arguement but a couple points:

- Something being "collectively bargained" doesn't mean they can just therefore adopt discriminatory practices like age, race, sex, religion, etc. restrictions. You can't collectively bargain something that's against federal law. I mean what if they collectively bargained that Asians couldn't play or Moslems were banned, or nobody under 20 or over 40.

---

The law doesn't protect against age discrimination unless it is against someone over 40. There is no constitutional protection against discrimination against young people. This is totally unlike race discrimination which is barred by several federal laws (including Title VII and Section 1981).

There is no law against barring employment to people under the age of 20 except anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws do contain an exemption for collectively bargained provisions - in other words they don't apply where a recognized union has collectively bargained a rule such as this one in the workplace. That is why the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the NFL. The Judges at that level don't care if you are Lebron James or Maurice Clarett.

Quote:

---

- Most folks I knew thought the Clarett case was basically a hit against him and not a real precedent setter. A quality person with quality legal representation might turn the thing around.

---

You don't know a lot of lawyers, do you?

[DJlaysitup]

Good points and I doubt the thing will be overturned (Oden would be an idiot to try)...but it's not quite as cut and dried as you make it out.

from: Sports-Law.blogspot.com

The legal argument will also contemplate how the NBA possesses an economic monopoly on pro basketball. While it is technically correct that a banned 18-year old could play in Europe or in the minor leagues, there is an astronomical pay disparity between playing in the NBA and playing in those venues. Put differently, they are not substitute employment opportunities, and there is real economic harm in the disparity. Just consider this: the average first round pick in tonight’s draft will earn $1.6 million next season; if instead he could only play professionally in the CBA or the NBDL, he would make between $20,000 and $35,000. If he went to Europe, he would be lucky to break $75,000 in his first season. And then add to that lost endorsement opportunities, and the economic harm is even greater. Really, this isn't a matter of apples and oranges. It's one of apples and tic-tacs, and that is often a tell-tale sign of a group boycott from an economic monopoly.

(as with many cases, it could come down to the political outlook of the judge)

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You don't know a lot of lawyers, do you?

---

I have a good friend who is the Asst DA in Clayton County. I have never seen someone who likes to argue so much. He will argue about anything. And don't let him know if he is getting on your nerves or he will just keep on and on. He will keep arguing even when he knows he is wrong.

Reminds me of Diesel now that I think about it.

[DJlaysitup]

Well most of us love to argue , honestly it looks like AHF and the others have pretty well won this one.

Still, the NBA may have some trouble on the hoorizon. Sooner or later it's going to happen (I wish it wouldn't but the law of averages will probably win out)...it is, some Kobe-like talent who's putting up 50 a game in a good HS league (who would obviously be drafted under the old rules) is gonna be forced to do the mandatory NCAA service and is gonna blow out a knee or otherwise get hurt and the big $$ career will be over. The dream of buying Mom a nice house to retire in because she worked 2 jobs while raising him will be over...and a bigtime attorney is going to take the case and be all over the TV with news conferences and paint the NBA as the villian. There will be plenty of blame to go around and lotsa egg on lotsa faces...and to be fair, a great player will be out a career because of the NBA owners and the player's union.

The NBA/PU will probably win in court, but it might not be worth it (the court of public opinion counts as well). The NCAA will likely get some egg too.