Berger: Players File Antitrust Complaints Against NBA In California, Minnesota

by Ben Golliver on Nov 15, 2011 4:55 PM PST in News

Ken Berger of CBSSports.com reports that members of the artists formerly known as the National Basketball Players Association have filed or plan to file antitrust complaints against the NBA in California and Minnesota on Tuesday.

Players named as plaintiffs in the California case include New York Knicks forward Carmelo Anthony, Knicks guard Chauncey Billups, Oklahoma City Thunder forward Kevin Durant, San Antonio Spurs rookie forward Kawhi Leonard and free agent forward Leon Powe.

Players named as plaintiffs in the Minnesota case include free agent forward Caron Butler, Detroit Pistons guard Ben Gordon, Minnesota Timberwolves forward Anthony Tolliver and Minnesota Timberwolves rookie forward Derrick Williams.

Tolliver was briefly a member of the Portland Trail Blazers during the 2009-2010 season. He didn't know that former Miami Heat forward Michael Beasley was left-handed, got burned off the dribble twice in a row and Blazers coach Nate McMillan took the appropriate steps to ensure that he was never heard from again.

The Minnesota complaint can be read here in PDF form via CBSSports.com. All 30 NBA teams, including the Blazers, are named as defendants in the filing. An excerpt...

Despite being informed of the above disclaimer of collective bargaining status by the NBPA, the NBA Defendants have made it clear that they intend to continue their group boycott of plaintiffs and all other NBA players and will not cease this boycott until the players agree to a new set of anticompetitive restraints and massive roll back in their salaries. This conduct now constitutes ablatant violation of the antitrust
laws.

The legal complaints come one day after the NBPA issued a disclaimer of interest after rejecting the NBA's latest proposal and on the same day the NBA officially cancelled all games through Dec. 15.

Zach Lowe of SI.com has the NBA's official response via spokesperson Tim Frank to the antitrust lawsuits.

"We haven't seen Mr. Boies complaint yet but it's a shame that the players have chosen to litigate instead of negotiate. They warned us from the early days of these negotiations that they would sue us if we didn't satisfy them at the bargaining table, and they appear to have followed through on their threats."

Ross Siler, former beat writer for the Salt Lake Tribune and current law school student, offers the following thoughts...

Read the brief in the Minnesota suit. Continue to think we're a lot closer to impasse than complete breakdown of collective bargaining.

Players emphasize that NBA has made clear since at least 2009 that it is seeking a "massive reduction" in player salaries. Players also emphasize that they've negotiated for 20 months unsuccessfully and NBA put a take-it-or-leave-it offer on table. The players are trying to lay the groundwork for a court to find that a complete breakdown of collective bargaining has happened.

The NBA will argue the other side, that this is the hard bargaining and tough negotiating that happens all the time in other industries. We don't want to let unions disclaim interest as if it's an "on/off switch" (and they will use that line) because it creates uncertainty. Antitrust suits are really important, and as a result, we don't want to just let people use them for purely tactical bargaining reasons.

Chris Sheridan of SheridanHoops.com writes that David Boies, the new counsel for the players, had some tough words for the NBA.

"I will give the devil their due. They did a terrific job of holding a hard line and making the players make concession after concession after concession," Boies said. "Greed is not only a terrible thing but a dangerous thing, and they are overplaying their hand by pushing the players beyond any line of reasonableness."

Berger also reports that a judge could order mandatory, non-binding federal mediation to help resolve the ongoing labor negotiations.

This post will update.

-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Berger also reports that a judge could order mandatory, non-binding federal mediation to help resolve the ongoing labor negotiations.

That’ll fix it!

by Timmay! on Nov 15, 2011 5:31 PM PST reply actions

Yeah, they haven't tried that 3 times yet.

But who knows maybe the owners would be willing to give a little more based on the players going the legal route? That of course, is what the players hope.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 15, 2011 5:33 PM PST up reply actions

Um, negotiate with whom?

by signal_lost on Nov 16, 2011 9:31 AM PST up reply actions

Plaintiffs and defendants

The players would be represented by the named class representatives and their attorneys.

"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave

by DC Blazer on Nov 16, 2011 2:13 PM PST up reply actions

Power to the People!

by zbrum on Nov 15, 2011 5:37 PM PST reply actions

what happens if the players dont like what the courts decision is?

Do they actually have to play?

I was just reading the Larry Coon Salary Cap FAQ and WOW! what a ton of info! I highly recommend it to anyone who might have a CBA question. Its really long but also very easy to get a quick answer to almost any CBA related topic. It also has some pretty good links-it even has a direct link to the CBA! Hey Dave and Ben-you might wanna place Larry Coon a little higher up on the page somewhere in bright blinking neon with a sign saying READ ME on it!! LOL Just kidding but WOW! its so relevant right now.

by cavejunctionblazer on Nov 15, 2011 5:56 PM PST reply actions

Yeah, if the initial decisions come down on the side of the owners, the players will likely quickly cede to the owners’ 47% offer if not worse, reform the union and start hoops. Whether that’s in time to salvage a season is unclear.

i keep dancing on my own.

by atomiccafe on Nov 15, 2011 6:07 PM PST up reply actions

I would imagine that Boies used this exact same rhetoric agains the NFLPA:

The NBA will argue the other side, that this is the hard bargaining and tough negotiating that happens all the time in other industries. We don’t want to let unions disclaim interest as if it’s an “on/off switch” (and they will use that line) because it creates uncertainty. Antitrust suits are really important, and as a result, we don’t want to just let people use them for purely tactical bargaining reasons.

I can’t imagine why he thinks it will work, now.

Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 15, 2011 7:12 PM PST reply actions

Boies also made a comment that sterns "ultimatum" could come back and haunt the owners

It sounds like that actually helped the players case that the owners were not negotiating in good faith.

by Kazper on Nov 15, 2011 7:18 PM PST reply actions

The've had two years to negotiate.

I'm typing this here because I became jealous of everyone else with signatures in their posts.

by Flapbreaker on Nov 16, 2011 8:50 AM PST up reply actions

They have, but that doesn't mean they spent that time negotiating.

we both know they didn’t start negotiating till just recently. The question is did the owners actually negotiate in good faith or all along have they been giving ridicules proposals wanting the players to be locked out and start missing paychecks to force them to take a poor deal. Some of us may say thats good tactics, but the question is are they legal tactics in this specific situation. I personally have no idea, but there must be some debate for this to even have an option to go to a lawsuit.

by Kazper on Nov 16, 2011 9:49 AM PST up reply actions

I expect the players have a pretty good case to make

that the owners didn’t really begin negotiating until it was ensured the players would start missing paychecks. That is a very seriuos allegation against good faith bargaining.

Why won’t the owners abide by current contracts until a new cba is formed for all future contracts.

by NWfan on Nov 16, 2011 12:39 PM PST up reply actions

Pretty sure the NBA has been actively bargaining on and off over the last two years

They didn’t wait to deal until the players started missing paychecks.

"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave

by DC Blazer on Nov 16, 2011 2:29 PM PST up reply actions

Formal CBA discussions began on March 20, 2009

And as it goes with most negotiations, little progress was made until a deadline arrived. But then, that applies to both sides. As you note, this wasn’t a situation where serious negotiations didn’t start until last week. They’ve worked hard for months, and were in discussions long before that. They just can’t reach agreement, which doesn’t mean both sides haven’t tried.

NBA.com has a VERY detailed timeline of this lockout. It’s surprisingly balanced, considering its on NBA.com.

by Timmay! on Nov 16, 2011 5:11 PM PST up reply actions

Casey pointed out to me

when I made a similar comment about the surprising balance of an NBA.com article, that the league actually doesn’t run NBA.com any more. Contracted out to Turner Sports these days.

by Royster on Nov 16, 2011 5:18 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, I had a problem with NBA League Pass Broadband last year

And ended up in Turner Internet support, which was just weird.

by Timmay! on Nov 16, 2011 5:26 PM PST up reply actions

How would you measure...

the players union announcing that they’ll keep decertification in play if they don’t get what they want? The players threatened decertification early in the process but the owners threatened ultimatum late in the process. Which is worse? Is either bad faith negotiating or just hard nosed negotiating?

And what would the players incentive be to negotiate a new CBA if they’re being paid under the old one after it has expired?

by signal_lost on Nov 16, 2011 3:57 PM PST up reply actions

Of course Boies argues that, but I don't think it will hurt the owners

The ultimatum tied to the thread of making a harsher offer is pretty rough, but I think it’s still within the realm of standard bargaining practices. Boies will have a hard time supporting his argument that it essentially amounts to a refusal to deal.

"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave

by DC Blazer on Nov 16, 2011 2:29 PM PST up reply actions

especially given that the owners continued to move the needle on minor points throughout that process

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Nov 16, 2011 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

And considering the Owners...

will call the governments own negotiator to prove their points.

by signal_lost on Nov 16, 2011 3:59 PM PST up reply actions

A court should order both sides to work minimum wage jobs during this lockout. I have a feeling they would come to an agreement much sooner. Both of these sides are in desperate need of some perspective. They are fighting over billions. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck. Money has really turned some of the players into people they would otherwise hate. This generation of NBA players would not respect Michael Jordan if he quit playing basketball because he wasn’t getting enough money from the Bulls. Playing basketball is fun and you become great because of a passion for the sport, not a paycheck. I expect this behavior from the owners but not the players. The NBA truly is all about money.

by BRoyInThe4th on Nov 15, 2011 8:38 PM PST reply actions

It is vital for the players union to stand united

against all forms of union busting. No matter how wealthy the union or the union member, whatever can be done against players by the NBA owners can be done by corporations against plumbers, hotel workers, or office clerks. This is not just a fight for nickels and dimes as often characterized by the so-called free market advocates, this is a fight for worker’s rights everywhere. The attempts to dehumanize players because they are well off is not only misleading, a crude form of propoganda, but is despicable because it betrays a secret envy of the success of black men when compared to their own. It is a latent expression of the old racial patterns of Jim Crow America. I encourage the young readers of this website to read deeply the history of unions and their connectedness to the civil rights movement and the subsequent enlightenment experienced by millions of Americans as a result of their efforts. I implore you to recall your roots and the sacrifices of your grandparents and their parents before the advent of the bitter age of the corporation and profit at any and all costs. If by some odd quirk of birth or luck you are a wealthy man then you perhaps can justify your support of the owners through empathy of kind and like minds. But how many of you meet that criteria? How many of you really can relate to Paul Allen or Stern, or Vulcan Inc. and the slick ways of corporate entertainment? Your natural sympathy rests with the young man who, through hard work and good fortune, found a way to escape poverty while recalling that success never relinquishes your human right to representation and self-determination. Your success does not make you a puppet or pawn of the corporation or billionaire boss man. I write this a proud member of an old union family.

by oregonslee on Nov 15, 2011 9:20 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

give me a break

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Nov 16, 2011 6:42 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

i stopped reading after the 4th line

by biggfish02 on Nov 16, 2011 5:50 PM PST up reply actions

Those clever owners...

They’ve created circumstances where the union breaks itself! (Dr. Evil laugh here).

by signal_lost on Nov 16, 2011 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

California, Minnesota????

California isn’t in Minnesota!!! They’re two different states!!

It’s obvious that the players are in WAY over their heads.

by AverageJon on Nov 15, 2011 9:50 PM PST reply actions

They chose courts that are favorable to their position

Just as the owners pre-sued in NY whcih is favorable to their case. Now there are two lawsuits one in each state. Since all players play in those states they can file in those states.

by NWfan on Nov 16, 2011 12:43 PM PST up reply actions