PDA

View Full Version : Controversial NBA Topics / Ideas?



sweabs
09-21-2006, 09:02 PM
a

Lord Helmet
09-21-2006, 09:15 PM
Violet Palmer being an employed NBA referee.

Eindar
09-21-2006, 09:19 PM
The need for Allen Iverson to go to practice.

AesopRockOn
09-21-2006, 09:21 PM
The dress code is complete bs and probably not legal if someone actually decided to challenge it. Not sure about the legalities of the age limit; the old old enough to fight in Iraq but not old enough to play professional basketball. The age limit sort of protects foolish owners from picking players that may be overhyped and not really ready for the NBA. Neither of which will be a big deal in a couple of years though. Race in the NBA or how the NBA markets its product are always subjects. Facts and figures are always impressive. Good luck bro.

Eindar
09-21-2006, 09:26 PM
The dress code is complete bs and probably not legal if someone actually decided to challenge it. Not sure about the legalities of the age limit; the old old enough to fight in Iraq but not old enough to play professional basketball. The age limit sort of protects foolish owners from picking players that may be overhyped and not really ready for the NBA. Neither of which will be a big deal in a couple of years though. Race in the NBA or how the NBA markets its product are always subjects. Facts and figures are always impressive. Good luck bro.

I have a dress code at my work, and I assure you, it's completely legal. The fact that it's a sport doesn't make it not a business and them not employees. As far as the age limit goes, the only legal grounds anyone has to stand on in terms of challenging it is if it's the only available venue for their skills. In essence, they have to prove that they have marketable skills, and that without the NBA, they and their family would starve. Unfortunately, this whole idea is nixed by the fact that any 18 year old can play a year in the D-League, making enough money to feed his family. He can also go to Europe if he so chooses, so the age limit is perfectly defensible from a legal standpoint, as far as I can see.

sweabs
09-21-2006, 09:27 PM
a

miller31
09-21-2006, 10:54 PM
Isaiah Thoms demolishing the Knicks and how no on like him! :laugh:

JayRedd
09-21-2006, 10:55 PM
As far as the age limit goes, the only legal grounds anyone has to stand on in terms of challenging it is if it's the only available venue for their skills. In essence, they have to prove that they have marketable skills, and that without the NBA, they and their family would starve. Unfortunately, this whole idea is nixed by the fact that any 18 year old can play a year in the D-League, making enough money to feed his family. He can also go to Europe if he so chooses, so the age limit is perfectly defensible from a legal standpoint, as far as I can see.

I'm not 100% positive on this, so excuse me if I'm not correct here.......

But I believe the age-limit imposed by both the NBA and NFL to be an entirely illegal and discriminatory practice. As far as I understand the law (I work as an editor for a corporate risk magazine), no company is allowed to discrimate in its employment practices based on race, religion, gender, disability or age.

An 18-year-old limit may be defensible due to a supposed "no minor" policy but I even doubt that.

I agree that it's probably in the best interest of both the NBA and the NCAA for them not to have high-schoolers coming out of the draft, but I can see absolutely no reason why a rule like this holds any creedence whatsoever from a Constitutional or other legal standpoint. Simply put, it's age discrimination and it seems to be just as illegal as it would be for IBM to fire some 55-year-old mid-level manager by telling him "Sorry, Bob...You're just too old."

Anyone in the legal community that could shed further light on this subject would be much appreciated.

Mac_Daddy
09-21-2006, 11:29 PM
Between the NBA and NFL, I think the NFL has more of a thing going for them withthe age limit. Highschoolers would get killed out there.

AesopRockOn
09-21-2006, 11:33 PM
I have a dress code at my work, and I assure you, it's completely legal. The fact that it's a sport doesn't make it not a business and them not employees. As far as the age limit goes, the only legal grounds anyone has to stand on in terms of challenging it is if it's the only available venue for their skills. In essence, they have to prove that they have marketable skills, and that without the NBA, they and their family would starve. Unfortunately, this whole idea is nixed by the fact that any 18 year old can play a year in the D-League, making enough money to feed his family. He can also go to Europe if he so chooses, so the age limit is perfectly defensible from a legal standpoint, as far as I can see.

The point I was trying to make about the dress code is the fact that David Stern does not pay Stephen Jackson or Kobe Bryant; he is not the owner to whom these players are tied by signing their contracts. The owners would have the right to tell the players would to do on the job but why should David Stern be able to impose fines for something that only a few people find offensive. Your work dress code is valid because your employer sets it; these guys are employed by their respective francises. How much is the necessity of marketability involved in issues of discrimination due to age? These are just my thoughts; I'm no pre-law student or anything.

LG33
09-21-2006, 11:46 PM
The need for Allen Iverson to go to practice.

Practice? Practice!? We talking about practice! We're not even talking about a game, we talking about practice?!

Hahahaha, a true modern classic...
Here's the YouTube for anyone who hasn't had the pleasure...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI&search=Allen%20Iverson%2C%20practice

I think there is one point where he really is unsure what "we" are talking about.


Here's a video with a counter if that floats your boat - http://youtube.com/watch?v=frsId3goYYE&mode=related&search=Allen%20Iverson%2C%20practice

rabid
09-22-2006, 12:01 AM
The point I was trying to make about the dress code is the fact that David Stern does not pay Stephen Jackson or Kobe Bryant; he is not the owner to whom these players are tied by signing their contracts. The owners would have the right to tell the players would to do on the job but why should David Stern be able to impose fines for something that only a few people find offensive. Your work dress code is valid because your employer sets it; these guys are employed by their respective francises. How much is the necessity of marketability involved in issues of discrimination due to age? These are just my thoughts; I'm no pre-law student or anything.

Because the franchises are contractually obligated to follow league bylaws. And they put language in the players' contracts saying that the players have to follow the bylaws too, or else face fines, suspensions or whatever.

That's it, basically.

VigoCountyPacerFan
09-22-2006, 12:22 AM
Hip Hop Culture Image and the white suburban core of NBA fans

JayRedd
09-22-2006, 12:47 AM
Between the NBA and NFL, I think the NFL has more of a thing going for them withthe age limit. Highschoolers would get killed out there.

But 18-year-olds can be construction workers, coal miners, oil-riggers or Alaskan crab fisherman. What does danger have to do with the legality of an employer discriminating against a potential employee based on age? Is Bethleham Steel allowed to say you aren't eligible to tell someone they won't accept their application if they are 18 years old? Then why is the NFL?

Or can Paul Tagliabue (or whatever the new guy's name is) also decide to make a league regulation that Mexicans aren't allowed to play in the NFL until at least 4 years after they graduate high-school?

Because in the court of American law, I'm pretty sure age discrimination is looked at exactly the same way that race, gender, disability or religious discrimination is.

Any lawyers out there?

Eindar
09-22-2006, 01:19 AM
The point I was trying to make about the dress code is the fact that David Stern does not pay Stephen Jackson or Kobe Bryant; he is not the owner to whom these players are tied by signing their contracts. The owners would have the right to tell the players would to do on the job but why should David Stern be able to impose fines for something that only a few people find offensive. Your work dress code is valid because your employer sets it; these guys are employed by their respective francises. How much is the necessity of marketability involved in issues of discrimination due to age? These are just my thoughts; I'm no pre-law student or anything.

David Stern is essentially elected by the owners, so when he speaks, he's got the interest of the owners at heart, and any directive he passes down has been approved by the owners, or at least a majority of them. So that's part of the reason they have to abide by it, other than the contractual obligation.

Jose Slaughter
09-22-2006, 02:22 AM
NBA players playing for thier country in international competition.

Drug testing

Eindar
09-22-2006, 02:28 AM
I'm not 100% positive on this, so excuse me if I'm not correct here.......

But I believe the age-limit imposed by both the NBA and NFL to be an entirely illegal and discriminatory practice. As far as I understand the law (I work as an editor for a corporate risk magazine), no company is allowed to discrimate in its employment practices based on race, religion, gender, disability or age.

An 18-year-old limit may be defensible due to a supposed "no minor" policy but I even doubt that.

I agree that it's probably in the best interest of both the NBA and the NCAA for them not to have high-schoolers coming out of the draft, but I can see absolutely no reason why a rule like this holds any creedence whatsoever from a Constitutional or other legal standpoint. Simply put, it's age discrimination and it seems to be just as illegal as it would be for IBM to fire some 55-year-old mid-level manager by telling him "Sorry, Bob...You're just too old."

Anyone in the legal community that could shed further light on this subject would be much appreciated.

I've been doing some research, especially in the Clarett vs. NFL argument, and it's very intriguing, but it's also very late and I'm very tired. Here's a link where the District Court ruled for Clarett:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nfl/clarettnfl20504opn.pdf#search=%22clarett%20court%2 0opinion%22

Here's a blog along with a link at the bottom with the Opinion of the appeals court that overturned the 2nd District Court, forbidding Clarett from joining the NFL early:
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2004/05/appeals-court-rules-against-clarett.html

So, I guess the final ruling, as it stands now, is that if a Player's Union enters into a CBA with a League, and there is an age restriction put into place to protect the Union's players salary and ability to work, that is perfectly acceptable, because it falls under an exception to the anti-trust law, putting it into labor law, instead. Once in that realm, the player doesn't have a leg to stand on, because the Union and the League are acting in it's own best interest, and also because the Union and the League are acting on the Player's best interest in the future when he is a member of the Union.

So, really, all Stern has to do is show that the NBAPA entered into the CBA with a 19 year old age-restriction as a valid item for discussion, and he can bar 18 year olds from entering the NBA draft. His case is only further strengthened by the fact that he has an outlet for 18 year olds who want to work in the D-League, which is owned by the NBA. So, technically, David Stern isn't barring you from being an employee of the NBA, he's only barring you from becoming a union member in the NBAPA, which is perfectly acceptable given current rulings.

Mac_Daddy
09-22-2006, 03:43 PM
But 18-year-olds can be construction workers, coal miners, oil-riggers or Alaskan crab fisherman. What does danger have to do with the legality of an employer discriminating against a potential employee based on age? Is Bethleham Steel allowed to say you aren't eligible to tell someone they won't accept their application if they are 18 years old? Then why is the NFL?

Or can Paul Tagliabue (or whatever the new guy's name is) also decide to make a league regulation that Mexicans aren't allowed to play in the NFL until at least 4 years after they graduate high-school?

Because in the court of American law, I'm pretty sure age discrimination is looked at exactly the same way that race, gender, disability or religious discrimination is.

Any lawyers out there?

Well, then why doesn't someone just go out and sue because they are being unconstitutional? If people are really that hard-pressed about it, they can do something. The NFL is just trying to protect these kids. Most other companies really don't give a damn, as long as they produce their products. I think that the NFL is doing the highschoolers a favor. If they are good enough to be in the pros out of highschool, they can get a full ride to a good school and maybe even earn a degree. Its not like its a bad thing to have a degree to fall back on if you get a career ending injury.

I'm not a huge fan of age restrictions, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to get kids to go to college.

mboyle1313
09-22-2006, 03:48 PM
All,

Eindar brings up an important distinction: the age limit was not imposed unilaterally by the NBA or the individual franchise owners. It was agreed upon in the collective bargaining process.

In other words, though I'm no lawyer, I suspect this makes a considerable difference when ascertaining legality.

MJB

ChicagoJ
09-22-2006, 04:52 PM
Right, that's why it was a CBA topic and not just a league rule.

Clearly, if Stern/ the owners just dictated this then it would provoke a legal fight.

Keep in mind the players, from a business/ union perspective, don't benefit from the eighteen y/o's at all (which is why the union has been in favor of a rookie salary cap ever since the Glenn Robinson situation - the rookie cap protects veteran players), while the league/ owners have profited from guys like Garnett, Kobe, and LeBron (and made mistakes on, well, a whole bunch of guys and not just Bender.)

JayRedd
09-22-2006, 07:22 PM
So essentially it's a union issue and not an employer issue?

This makes more sense, and I figured it must have to do with this. Therefore it is the union that is being discriminatory. I still find it interesting that a union and a conglomorate corporation (the NBA) are allowed to mutually conspire a deal in a very public arena that encourages and mandates discriminatory practices. Especially since the whole idea seemed to grow out of the NBA's desire moreso than the players union.

I still think this would be a much shadier issue if it a mutually agreed-upon decision between a union of mill-workers and a group of mill-owners who were trying to keep perfectly capable adult-aged workers out of their labor force.

I know it will never be challenged or changed...And it's clearly a positive thing for me as a fan of the NBA and NCAA.....I've just always wondered why it's no big deal that discrimination is openly practiced, endorsed and celebrated.

Hicks
09-22-2006, 07:41 PM
You say that like it's the equivilant racial discrimination or something. There's more to the decision than some petty disliking of an agegroup.

Eindar
09-22-2006, 07:46 PM
So essentially it's a union issue and not an employer issue?

This makes more sense, and I figured it must have to do with this. Therefore it is the union that is being discriminatory. I still find it interesting that a union and a conglomorate corporation (the NBA) are allowed to mutually conspire a deal in a very public arena that encourages and mandates discriminatory practices. Especially since the whole idea seemed to grow out of the NBA's desire moreso than the players union.

I still think this would be a much shadier issue if it a mutually agreed-upon decision between a union of mill-workers and a group of mill-owners who were trying to keep perfectly capable adult-aged workers out of their labor force.

I know it will never be challenged or changed...And it's clearly a positive thing for me as a fan of the NBA and NCAA.....I've just always wondered why it's no big deal that discrimination is openly practiced, endorsed and celebrated.

The difference is that in your mill-worker scenario, the young mill-worker isn't taking a job from a current member of the mill-worker's union who is more experienced and, in most cases, a better worker. That's not the way those industries work. That's what makes sports a unique entity, and if you read that first opinion by the judge, she goes into some pretty good depth, and seems pretty interested in this being a sport, and what separates that from other industries.