[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 3941-3942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             THE PREVENT LOCKOUT OF ATHLETES THIS YEAR ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 14, 2011

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce H.R. __, the 
PLAY Act. This bill will ensure that a congressionally granted 
antitrust immunity is never again misused to build up an improper ``war 
chest'' to gain leverage in a football lockout and put our nation's 
most popular sport at risk.
  An independent United States District Judge recently found that the 
NFL acted in bad faith by negotiating broadcast contracts ensuring the 
league would be paid even if it locked out

[[Page 3942]]

players. In other words, the league manipulated broadcast negotiations 
to maximize its ability to force and win a lockout, and did so--in the 
Court's words--``to advance its own interests and harm the interests of 
the players.''
  Those flawed negotiations were conducted under the protective 
umbrella of the antitrust immunity given to football by the Congress. 
Accordingly, the PLAY Act would strip this immunity from professional 
football so it can never be misused in this way again.


                           FURTHER BACKGROUND

  The Sports Broadcast Act of 1961. Under the Sports Broadcast Act of 
1961, the four major United States sports currently enjoy immunity from 
our antitrust laws so they can negotiate league wide broadcast 
contracts. Without this immunity, the antitrust laws could limit league 
competitors from jointly negotiating these deals. And potentially anti-
competitive provisions of the broadcast pacts such as overly extended 
blackout territories could be subject to antitrust scrutiny.
  Broadcast revenue is critical to the National Football League and its 
players. According to recent court testimony of Commissioner Roger 
Goodell, ``broadcast contracts generate approximately half of the NFL's 
total revenues''--or over $4 billion per year. This revenue is critical 
to the players as well as the league and its owners, as it forms the 
heart of the shared revenue pool that is used for health and other 
benefits, as well as salaries.
  Congress--and the House Judiciary Committee in particular--has long 
been vigilant in the exercise of its antitrust jurisdiction regarding 
the economic impact of major sports business on America's communities, 
in particular taking action in the wake of a professional sports work 
stoppage.
  In 1994, following the baseball strike, the Judiciary Committee under 
Chairman Brooks held hearings and passed legislation partially 
repealing baseball's antitrust exemption, which culminated four years 
later in the enaction of the Curt Flood Act. In 1996, after the Browns 
left Cleveland, the Committee, under Chairman Hyde, again considered 
legislation and held antitrust hearings. In 2001, under Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, after Major League Baseball announced the possible 
contraction and elimination of the Minnesota Twins franchise, we 
conducted hearings on antitrust legislation that I introduced.
  Bad Faith Contract Re-negotiations. In May 2008, the National 
Football League re-negotiated its contracts with the major broadcasters 
who televise professional football. While the particulars of these 
negotiations varied, in all or most cases, the district court's opinion 
describes how the league insisted on provisions that would shield it 
from the economic impact of a lock out.
  In response, the National Football League Players' Association (at 
the time, the certified bargaining representative for NFL Players), 
petitioned the United States District Court overseeing the league's 
collective bargaining relationship with its players for a declaration 
that the league's approach to the negotiations violated its contractual 
duty to maximize total revenue to the league and the players each 
season.
  On March 3, 2011, United States District Judge Doty, who is expert in 
NFL-related matters and has handled league/player disputes for roughly 
twenty years, issued an order agreeing with the players' contention. 
Judge Doty explained: ``The NFL sought to renegotiate broadcast 
contracts to ensure revenue for itself in the event of a lockout. The 
record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance 
its own interests and harm the interests of the players. . . . Here, 
the NFL renegotiated the broadcast contracts to benefit its exclusive 
interest at the expense of, and contrary to, the joint interests of the 
NFL and the Players. This conduct constitutes a design to seek an 
unconscionable advantage and is inconsistent with good faith.''
  A Lockout Harms All Americans. These bad faith negotiations--carried 
out under the protective umbrella of the Sports Broadcast Act's 
antitrust immunity--are of particular concern given the great harm to 
our national economy a lockout would likely cause. One recent report 
states that a single NFL game generates over $20 million in local 
economic activity--a total of over $5.1 billion each year in NFL and 
peripheral businesses. Over 100,000 stadium workers would be directly 
affected by a lockout, and undoubtedly vastly more across different 
segments of the economy that are connected to the football industry.
  A Congressionally Granted Immunity Should Not Be Used to Gain 
Leverage in a Lock Out. A business that intentionally misuses a 
Congressionally granted immunity to build up an improper ``war chest'' 
and gain leverage of collective bargaining negotiations should not be 
allowed to retain such immunity.
  The PLAY Act thus removes professional football from the protection 
of this immunity.

                          ____________________