[mattm]

What I find incredibly interesting about sports "unions" is that the unions use the threat of disbanding as a labour tactic. In every other industry, if the labour union even hinted at disbanding, the owners would ask "How can we help you along?" In North American sports leagues, the owners fight it.

You have to wonder exactly who is benefiting from Players Associations?

[MisterBastahrd]

That isn't incredibly interesting at all. The members of Players Associations are the best at what they do in the entire world. Leagues immediately suffer financially when these players aren't competing. Leagues are contractually obligated to fulfill agreements to various television networks, which is impossible if the best players are not competing. Likewise, teams make a large amount of money on the likenesses of players through advertising and merchandising.

Players Associations differ from most other unions because of artificial constructs like free agency, the draft, and the salary cap which are ultimately beneficial to both the players and the leagues. Beneficial, but illegal in the US. PAs collectively bargain with the leagues and give their right to sue for these things away in order to secure long term benefits agreements with sports leagues.

Disbanding the union in order to file an antitrust suit is the nuclear option, and the owners know it.

[brudgers]

The collective bargaining agreements are prefered by the Owners because they limit free agency. Without such limitations the idea of an amateur draft falls apart - absent an agreement prospects could negotiate with any team because (IANAL) otherwise limiting their rights would be illegal.