Jump to content

Talk:Radovich v. National Football League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bert Bell

[edit]

I want to move some stuff from Bert Bell to in this article-only NFL related stuff. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the AAFC-NFL section should be wholesale deleted. It has no bearing on the case other than it being the background for why the 5-year ban was implemented for players who jumped leagues. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just undermined that argument, and that's why I explained it in detail. I don't think a modern reader, familiar perhaps only with the WFL and USFL as rival pro football leagues, would understand why the NFL regarded the AAFC as enough of a competitive threat (especially in a world where pro football had not yet become what it is today) to engage in such an anticompetitive practice as blacklisting for five years anyone who played in it.

A little history outside the immediate facts of the case is always good for the reader, especially where the case taps into some larger issue (in this one, the first time the recently-upheld antitrust exemption for professional baseball being argued applicable to another professional team sport (and then held not to be so, as it also would be later for basketball and hockey), especially in a case that admitted that Federal Baseball would have been decided differently had it been heard at the same time. In that context, explaining that the NFL believed the AAFC to be a serious threat to its dominance of pro football, and how that situation was resolved, is useful in understanding what the Court understood as it considered the case.

I grant that it should be sourced, which we weren't required to do as militantly at the time I wrote this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the aafc-nfl rivalry info needs to be deleted. I am saying it goes into the background section. If you look at the books in the bell section, then you can see I can source it all. I will source it all and then write it. You can always, undo the section deletion. Furthermore, the immediate aftermath needs to be the congressional testimony wherein Bell, historically, recognizes the NFLPA and agrees to negotiate with them. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bert Bell, Radovich v. National Football League, National Football League Players Association, and the National Football League Draft are all closely connected. The Radovich case and the ensuing Congressional testimony was a pivotal moment in Bell's life because his precious draft was at stake. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, bear in mind, I am not saying anything in the aftermath section needs to be deleted. I am saying it needs more details specific to the complainant and the defendant in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also your external links section is buggy. The Bell article has a link to the Congressional testimony which includes the entire Radovich case verbatim. In this article, the U.S. link in the External links section that links to United States Reports needs to be in the See Also section. And the link to Justia is taboo on Wikipedia nowadays. I put in a link to that page and a bot reverted me - don't ask me why but the bot wrote something like linking to this website is not allowed. But I can point you to where the bot reverted me in the Bell article for linking to Justia. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've changed the way we do things at WP:SCOTUS since I wrote this. Linking to Justia isn't, as far as I know, a problem (unless something has been changed with them and SCOTUS; I have been out of the loop there) ... it was caselaw that was since they started limiting the free availability of what they offer. The preferred way to do this now is to use {{caselaw source}} in the xlinks section, including as many as you can find (usually justia, caselaw, Cornell and (increasingly) Google Scholar. OpenJurist comes up a bit too). Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your introduction is incorrect. 2 leagues merged with the NFL, not 1. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC) My bad. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the most important things not included is power of unions at the time. It had an impact on the congressional testimony that occurred after the Radovich case at the time. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The power of unions at the time"? Neither baseball nor football players were unionized at that time. Do you mean the power of unions as a whole? Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yest, the congressional hearings were held in public and not behind closed doors. Some members of the media at the time were equating the option clause tied players to their NFL team indefinitely - which was an exaggeration.
This fact is recanted by numerous published authors but here is a free one on the internet that shows the immediate impact of the Radovich was the legality of the NFL's draft and option clause were dubious: see page 14-15 [1] Congress' pressure on Bell forced him to recognize the NFLPA. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying the competition from other leagues should not be in this article. I have read nothing one way or the other about that except for the info in this article and I know nothing about antitrust laws.66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, the background is Federal Baseball Club v. National League, where Justice Holmes writes for the majority that the interstate aspect of professional baseball isn't fundamental enough to it that it comes under the Sherman Act. That decision was upheld in the early 1950s specifically regarding the rights of players and legality of the reserve clause in Toolson v. New York Yankees. Then United States v. International Boxing Club of New York declined to extend the Federal Baseball rule to pro boxing, creating some problems for the dissenting justices who couldn't see how baseball was really, by then, any different, and either they or Congress got rid of it for baseball or every sport should have it. Radovich upheld International Boxing, and so forth, and that gets really complicated for some of the dissenting justices in Flood v. Kuhn. I suppose at some point I should extend this with NCAA v. Board of Regents, although that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a simple question. Do you have a problem with me editing this article. I don't care if you revert my edits. I more than anyone know I am not that good of an editor and the fact that I have over 1050 edits in the Bell article is a sure sign I'm not that good. I wouldn't be here trying to get my Bell stuff out of there and into here unless I wrote stuff that was off topic/too detailed. Just delete my edits you don't like and put it in the edit summary off topic /too detailed..or whatever. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm interested in what you have to say, and if it's something we can and should put in the article (or another one) I'd be happy to help you do it if you feel the need for assistance. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. The pro football hall of fame put out a bibliography of everything associated with the NFL. Well, maybe not everything because as you might understand they are in a business. In that book, which I listed in the Bell article, is a listing of, I'm guessing, well over 3,000 articles and books broken down by subject (i.e. antitrust law), players, teams, publishers, authors, etc. I will consult that because the afl stuff is completely uncited and I am completely ignorant of what you term as the Legacy of the decision w respect to future competitors of the NFL. If you want to point me to any books that would be cool. But I am not the sharpest tack in the box. I am not interested in any law aspects as they are way over my head. I am only interested in (what I think a featured article, or a good article, about a Supreme Court case on Wikipedia referred to as), the Social impact of the decision...IOW, how it impacted the NFL. A full context reading of Bert Bell clearly indicates that his testimony before Congress, and the consequences surrounding it, was the pivotal moment in his life.
That being said. Bell's testimony before congress has to come out of legacy - that's aftermath. From my perspective, that's the biggest protblem with this article - that one sentence. I am kind of waiting to here back from the NFL draft people. Like I said, I am not good of an editor so feel free to delete off topic, too detailed stuff I put in. If you delete something I write, then it helps me because I can then either try to put in in the NFLPA article and if that fails then I have 2 groups of people telling me that it probably truly belongs in the Bell article and it is not off topic. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A while back I was part of a discussion as to what the proper headings should be for sections ... following some of the ideas worked out there might not be such a bad idea for this. Actually, as you describe it, "subsequent developments" would be better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I bring up the NFL draft for a bunch of reasons. But, Bell's version of the draft was ruled unconstitutional, years after he died: Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., 420 F. Supp. 738, 593 F. 2d 1173 (1978). (see Staudohar, 1986, pp. 79–81.) I have no idea if that case is a consequence of this decision but I strongly suspect that it doesis. I believe that The sources I read suggest it did not make it to scotus because the NFL changed the way the draft was implemented to avoid further litigation, albeit sources are unclear if that's true. The fact of the matter is the NFL draft is a cultural phenomena; I think they broadcast it live on TV from beginning to end nowadays (I'm not a big football knowledgeable guy). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been televised on ESPN since the early '80s; now I think it's on the NFL Network. Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., is here. Radovich is only mentioned in two footnotes (which, like many in both opinions, make fun reading), primarily as the precedent holding that antitrust laws reach professional football. It seems like the court relied largely on National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That link is absolutely wonderful because now I can include criticism of the draft as not being effective; I have not seen anyone ever criticize it. Personally, I found a quick hole in the District Courts finding of fact. But, my job is to write what notable people say. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radovich v. National Football League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radovich_v._National_Football_League&oldid=1205559277"