Rozelle Rule Case Summary

The case I am looking at from table 1.1 on page 6 is Mackey v. National Football League from 1976 where the main issue was the legality of the “Rozelle Rule”, which is a policy designated to restrict free agency. The issue that was being argued is the policy how it requires a team to give up players if it signs a free agent from another team that would be challenged as an illegal restraint on trade. The court ended up deciding that the “Rozelle Rule” is illegal and supporting free agency in football and other professional sports. However, they proved willing to support players’ challenges to sport leagues powers. After reading about the case, I felt the ruling was a correct one because looking at the ruling, it says that the non-statutory labor exemption …show more content…
In the negotiations during the 1970 agreement, there was only one reference to it once and it was so minor that everyone ignored it again. Having this rule be ignored or not brought to much attention just seemed unfair to the players because it was always mentioned in the agreements, but was never anything that agreed upon. It just makes no sense for the NFL to enforce such a rule that none of the players even really agreed upon themselves which is why it was ruled illegal since they were just enforcing a non agreed rule. Another factor about the “Rozelle Rule” that was interesting for me is how much this rule would significantly scare clubs from negotiating with and signing free agents and how it acts as a substantial deterrent to players playing out their options and becoming free agents. It also significantly decreases players' bargaining power in contract negotiations, resulting in players being denied the right to sell their services in a free and open market. As a result, the salaries paid by each club are lower than if competitive bidding were allowed to prevail, and that if the “Rozelle Rule” wasn’t present, there would be increased movement in interstate commerce of players from one