Collins v. National Basketball Players Ass'n
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21162, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2677, 850 F.Supp. 1468 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A labor union's regulations governing agents who represent its members are exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the statutory labor exemption when the regulations serve a legitimate union interest and are not the product of a combination with a non-labor group to restrain trade.
Facts:
- Thomas P. Collins worked as an agent for several National Basketball Association (NBA) players from 1974 until 1986.
- Before 1986, the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), the players' exclusive bargaining representative, did not regulate agents. By the mid-1980s, many players had complained to the NBPA about agent abuses, including excessive fees, conflicts of interest, and mishandling of funds.
- In 1986, in response to these complaints, the NBPA unilaterally established a comprehensive system of agent regulation, requiring agents to apply for certification, adhere to a code of conduct, and abide by fee limitations.
- After the NBPA established its regulations, it negotiated with the NBA to include Article XXXI in their collective bargaining agreement, which prohibits NBA teams from negotiating with non-certified agents.
- Collins received certification in 1986 but stopped working as an agent after being sued by his former client, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, for serious breaches of fiduciary duty.
- In 1988, Collins' certification was revoked for failing to pay dues and attend a mandatory seminar.
- After settling the lawsuit, Collins applied for recertification in 1990. The NBPA committee investigated his application, focusing on the allegations from the Abdul-Jabbar lawsuit.
- In December 1990, the committee denied Collins' application, finding that he had violated fiduciary duties, commingled funds, made false statements to the committee, and was unfit to serve in a fiduciary capacity.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas P. Collins (Plaintiff) filed suit in the U.S. District Court against the National Basketball Players Association and Charles Grantham (Defendants).
- Collins' complaint alleged that the defendants' agent certification system constituted a group boycott in violation of the Sherman Act, and also included state law claims for tortious interference with contracts and prospective business advantage.
- Prior to filing the lawsuit, Collins had declined to challenge the denial of his certification through the binding arbitration process provided for in the NBPA Regulations.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a professional sports players' union's regulations, which require agents to be certified by the union to negotiate player contracts and which are incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement with the league, constitute a group boycott in per se violation of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Matsch, District Judge.
No. The NBPA's regulations governing player agents do not violate the Sherman Act because they are protected by the statutory and nonstatutory labor exemptions to federal antitrust laws. The regulations are a legitimate exercise of the union's authority to protect the interests of its members. The court reasoned that the statutory labor exemption applies because the NBPA's actions meet the two-prong test from United States v. Hutcheson: 1) the union acted in its legitimate self-interest, and 2) it did not combine with a non-labor group to restrain competition in a product market. The regulations serve the legitimate union interest of protecting players from agent abuses, such as excessive fees and fiduciary breaches. The union acted unilaterally in creating the regulations and did not combine with the NBA, a non-labor group, to restrain trade; the agents themselves are considered a 'labor group' due to their economic interrelationship with the union's members. Furthermore, the subsequent collective bargaining agreement provision (Article XXXI) simply memorializes the league's pre-existing duty under federal labor law to bargain only with the union's designated representatives. The court also found that the nonstatutory exemption would apply, as the agreement was the product of bona fide, arm's-length collective bargaining over a legitimate subject of negotiation.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the power of professional sports unions to regulate player agents under the protection of federal labor law's exemptions from antitrust statutes. The decision clarifies that agent regulation is a legitimate union activity aimed at protecting members, not an anti-competitive conspiracy. By categorizing agents as a 'labor group' and the dispute as a 'labor dispute,' the court significantly narrows the avenues for antitrust challenges by agents who are denied certification. This precedent strengthens the authority of unions to control who represents their members, thereby impacting the business of sports representation by subjecting it to union oversight and discipline.
