Hope this proves true!!

[LogGrad98]

Thanks for the explanation kicky. It certainly would yield some interesting stuff if they decertified then players started suing.

 

[InGameStrategy]

One complication you might not be thinking about here is that pro sports features an intersection between anti-trust law and labor law. These issues are getting all bundled up in the articles but should be considered separately by the courts. Whether or not the NBA is practicing unlawful restraint of trade is a separate issue entirely from whether or not their lockout is legal and the rights and obligations of employee/employer. They get bundled up because of the aforementioned non-statutory labor exemption (a delightfully mouthy legal phrase that no one else would have come up) because while employer and employee are engaged in collective bargaining the league enjoys protection from anti-trust actions brought by the union because of a national policy favoring collective bargaining outcomes over judicial ones. The entire point of decertification is to delink the anti-trust and labor law areas and allow current union members to pursue anti-trust claims.

OK, understandable (I think), but if the union members must decertify in order to sue on the basis of anti-trust, then aren't they suing on the basis of antitrust actions (if any) outside the bonds of the prior CBA and lockout?

In other words, if the NBA doesn't act very anti-trust-y (e.g., saying "Go ahead and start your own league" and not standing in the players' way) post-decertification, how much of a standing could the NBAPA have, especially if they are the ones who break things off?

Not much, says my my armchair uneducated unlicensed lawyer side, although it appears that some of the hotshot agents might like to try their hand at post-decertification antitrust litigation. Didn't the NFLPA fail on this point also?