against the burdensome competition to ascertain whether the former outweighs the latter. A restraint is unreasonable if it has the net effect of substantially impeding competition.In most of the prior litigation in which the NFL was involved, the league argued that the restraint it had imposed was necessary to insure competitive balance. Generally, the courts have accepted this as a legitimate business purpose in light of the Leagues unique position.One of the most recent cases, Powell v. National Football League again involves team owners and players over the issue of free agency and movement among teams. However, while this issue was being decided, the Court invoked the provisions of Section 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act regarding the use of temporary or permanent injunction in cases involving a labor dispute. While the Court agreed with arguments on both sides, ultimately it felt that complete and unrestricted freedom of movement by players between clubs would result in the fear felt by many -- that the best teams with the most money would have the best players and the league would become unbalanced and unfair.It would appear that professional footballs draft eligibility rules are an unreasonable restraint of trade and that obviously collusion is utilized by the owners. The NFLs rule cannot be legitimized by its inclusion in the collective bargaining agreement between the League and the players association. The draft eligibility rule fails each prong of the three prong-test formulated by the courts. Furthermore, the anticompetitive effects of the rule far outweigh its importance to the players and therefore tip the balance in favor of antitrust application.Examined under substantive antitrust provisions, the rules violate section 1 of the Sherman Act since they unreasonably restrain competition for the services of talented young football players. The draft eligibility rules are not subject to the exception since they are ove...
