High Schoolers to enter draft

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Daseal

You honestly think in the extra year he would mature and grow up to a state much higher than the one he's currently in? I doubt it. One year means just about nothing in terms of maturing, but it means millions of dollars in salary. Which is more than I'll ever see in a year, that's for sure.

You're right that one year probably does not mean all that much. However, if you value maturity, you need to set some guidelines (even if they seem arbitrary). Plus, we're trying to say that the NFL has the right to make whatever membership rules they choose - provided they are legal.

We are saying that the government's interference in this matter isn't justifiable and legally, the ruling was erroneous.

Originally Posted by Daseal

The NFL has no right to keep these players out because of their age. Let's talk about Mike Williams some? You seem to dodge questions about him. Is it you just don't like Clarett because he did something for himself? He fought the system which he felt was unfair.

Mike Williams is being allowed in because of the ruling. The NFL must follow this ruling until it is overturned. I don't agree with either Clarett or Williams getting into the NFL.

Originally Posted by Daseal

It's like saying that because the blacks once weren't allowed to go to the same schools as white kids that who are they to challenge that rule and want an equal chance. They think they can move to the next level, who is the NFL to stop them?

This situation is in no reasonable waycomparable to the civil rights struggle of blacks in the U.S.

The NFL is the organization Clarett is seeking to enter so I think they have a right to determine who can come into the league. AARP doesn't let kids in either but I'm not going to whine about that. I don't get the kids eat free meal either when I go out. Amusement parks don't give me a kids/senior citizen discount. I don't get to shop at the PX because I'm not in the military (which has its own age, weight, health criteria).

Again, this is not age discrimination, its maturity discrimination. Though the rules seem arbitrary, they are the league's rules and since they are not illegal (in my mind), the government should not force the hand of the league.

Let's settle the legal aspect of the NFL age-discrimination situation since the Supreme Court will take a year to reach a ruling. The age discrimination laws apply to those 40 or older, not 40 or under. Hence, laws restricting minors and those under 21 from applying for certain jobs (i.e. bartender).

So, any discussion about the EOE is irrelevant.

Now, the second issue in Clarett v. NFL concerns Clarett's contention that the NFL is a monopoly and therefore it has no legal right to prohibit him from entering the NFL draft (thereby preventing him from pursuing his career).

I really doubt that Judge Judy's ruling in favor of Clarett will withstand the tests the appellate courts will apply. I say this with confidence because the Supreme Court has already ruled that the NFL is not subject to anti-trust laws since the NFL has a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association.

This legal antitrust precedent was established in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that terms of employment are immune from antitrust challenges. The court wrote, in an 8-1 voting judgment, that terms and conditions of employment are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. Therefore, anti-trust laws were not designed to, nor should they be used to interfere in situations such as Clarett's (in which the labor union does not have a dispute with the employer (NFL) and there is a collective bargaining agreement).

Judge Judy had no right to ignore the precedent established by the Supreme Court ruling.

Ramseyfan rests your Honor.