Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Who should pay for retired players medical bills?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 499731" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Here's part of a post I wrote in February of 2011:</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><em><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">"I don't think the NFL is a monopoly since other professional football leagues have and do exist and because the NFL doesn't dictate what each team can charge for tickets, concessions, etc. It also doesn't set a maximum salary for a player. (Beyond that, I don't think a monopoly in the entertainment business is harmful or important since it involves entertainment and not an essential good or service.) But when the USFL wanted to compete directly against the NFL it filed and won an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL in 1986. (Previously the USFL played in the spring and summer.) It couldn't charge the NFL with just being a monopoly (or a "pure" monopoly) since the USFL - a professional football league - existed. Instead they alleged the NFL had a monopoly regarding TV broadcasting rights, since at the time the NFL had a deal with all three of the "major" networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. The jury found that the NFL was a legal monopoly but used predatory tactics. However, it also found the USFL filed the case in order to force a merger with the NFL and most of its problems were due to mismanagement so it awarded the USFL one dollar. Luckily for the USFL, damages are tripled in anti-trust cases, so it was awarded $3. That "victory" in court ended the USFL. BTW, Al Davis testified against the NFL in that case and Donald Trump owned the USFL's New Jersey franchise. </span></em></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><em>More important and more recent is a 2010 US Supreme Court case having to do with trademark licensing (American Needle vs. NFL) in which <u>the Court, in a 9-0 ruling, ruled the NFL is a cartel of 32 independent businesses</u>." </em></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">- - - - - - - - - - - - -</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Regarding independent contractor status: NFL players are employees. If they weren't, they wouldn't have access to workers compensation. If they weren't, there wouldn't be an NFLPA. The fact players have NFL pensions and health care are also indications of employee status. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">The IRS looks at many different factors to determine whether or not a person is an independent contractor or an employee. The basic test from the IRS website is: "</span><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.</span>"</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">From another site: "A</span><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">n employee is employed by an employer to perform service in his affairs whose physical conduct in the performance of the service is controlled or is subject to the right to control by the employer…An independent contractor is a person who contracts with another to do something for him but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the other’s right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking."</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Not only are the players employees, in 2007 (I think) the IRS determined the people the NFL hired to collect urine specimens for drug testing are employees, not independent contractors as the NFL was treating them. (Why the NFL didn't hire a company which employs people to do that is beyond me. Maybe it does now.) </span></span> <span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">I agree: How we can ask our brave men and women in uniform to sacrifice their lives while the rest of us sacrifice <em>nothing</em> is sad. And why there hasn't been a huge outcry to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act (more correctly known as the Banking Act of 1933) which separated commercial banking from investment banking after the Great Depression is beyond me. But those are not the major drivers of our fiscal mess. From the Wall Street Journal article I linked on the previous page of this thread: "The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure."</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 499731, member: 4300"] [SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]Here's part of a post I wrote in February of 2011:[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][I][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]"I don't think the NFL is a monopoly since other professional football leagues have and do exist and because the NFL doesn't dictate what each team can charge for tickets, concessions, etc. It also doesn't set a maximum salary for a player. (Beyond that, I don't think a monopoly in the entertainment business is harmful or important since it involves entertainment and not an essential good or service.) But when the USFL wanted to compete directly against the NFL it filed and won an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL in 1986. (Previously the USFL played in the spring and summer.) It couldn't charge the NFL with just being a monopoly (or a "pure" monopoly) since the USFL - a professional football league - existed. Instead they alleged the NFL had a monopoly regarding TV broadcasting rights, since at the time the NFL had a deal with all three of the "major" networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. The jury found that the NFL was a legal monopoly but used predatory tactics. However, it also found the USFL filed the case in order to force a merger with the NFL and most of its problems were due to mismanagement so it awarded the USFL one dollar. Luckily for the USFL, damages are tripled in anti-trust cases, so it was awarded $3. That "victory" in court ended the USFL. BTW, Al Davis testified against the NFL in that case and Donald Trump owned the USFL's New Jersey franchise. [/FONT][/COLOR][/I][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial][I]More important and more recent is a 2010 US Supreme Court case having to do with trademark licensing (American Needle vs. NFL) in which [U]the Court, in a 9-0 ruling, ruled the NFL is a cartel of 32 independent businesses[/U]." [/I][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]- - - - - - - - - - - - -[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]Regarding independent contractor status: NFL players are employees. If they weren't, they wouldn't have access to workers compensation. If they weren't, there wouldn't be an NFLPA. The fact players have NFL pensions and health care are also indications of employee status. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]The IRS looks at many different factors to determine whether or not a person is an independent contractor or an employee. The basic test from the IRS website is: "[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.[/FONT][/COLOR]"[/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]From another site: "A[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]n employee is employed by an employer to perform service in his affairs whose physical conduct in the performance of the service is controlled or is subject to the right to control by the employer…An independent contractor is a person who contracts with another to do something for him but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the other’s right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking."[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]Not only are the players employees, in 2007 (I think) the IRS determined the people the NFL hired to collect urine specimens for drug testing are employees, not independent contractors as the NFL was treating them. (Why the NFL didn't hire a company which employs people to do that is beyond me. Maybe it does now.) [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][FONT=Georgia] [/FONT][SIZE=3][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial]I agree: How we can ask our brave men and women in uniform to sacrifice their lives while the rest of us sacrifice [I]nothing[/I] is sad. And why there hasn't been a huge outcry to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act (more correctly known as the Banking Act of 1933) which separated commercial banking from investment banking after the Great Depression is beyond me. But those are not the major drivers of our fiscal mess. From the Wall Street Journal article I linked on the previous page of this thread: "The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure."[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Staff online
Poppa San
* Team Owner *
Members online
sschind
RicFlairoftheNFL
kf323
DoURant
mradtke66
Poppa San
Latest posts
R
2024 1st Rd pick #25 Jorden Morgan OL
Latest: RicFlairoftheNFL
2 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
8 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: OldSchool101
9 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: Dantés
11 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: Dantés
22 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Who should pay for retired players medical bills?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top