Maurice Clarett v. National Football League

Defendant-appellant National Football League (“NFL” or “the League”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.) ordering plaintiff-appellee Maurice Clarett (“Clarett”) eligible to enter this year’s NFL draft on the ground that the NFL’s eligibility rules requiring Clarett to wait at least three full football seasons after his high school graduation before entering the draft violate antitrust laws. In reaching its conclusion, the district court held, inter alia, that the eligibility rules are not immune from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption. 1 We disagree and reverse.

BACKGROUND

Clarett, former running back for Ohio State University (“OSU”) and Big Ten *126 Freshman of the Year, is an accomplished and talented amateur football player. 2 After gaining national attention as a high school player, Clarett became the first college freshman since 1948 to open as a starter at the position of running back for OSU. He led that team through an undefeated season, even scoring the winning touchdown in a double-overtime victory in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl to claim the national championship. 3 Prior to the start of his second college season, however, Clarett was suspended from college play by OSU for reasons widely reported but not relevant here. 4 Forced to sit out his entire sophomore season, Clarett is now interested in turning professional by entering the NFL draft. Clarett is precluded from so doing, however, under the NFL’s current rules governing draft eligibility.

Founded in 1920, the NFL today is comprised of 32 member clubs and is by far the most successful professional football league in North America. 5 Because of the League’s fiscal success and tremendous public following, a career as an NFL player “represents an unparalleled opportunity for an aspiring football player in terms of salary, publicity, endorsement opportunities, and level of competition.” Clarett, 306 F.Supp.2d at 384. But since 1925, when Harold “Red” Grange provoked controversy by leaving college to join the Chicago Bears, 6 the NFL has required aspiring professional football players to wait a sufficient period of time after graduating high school to accommodate and encourage college attendance before entering the NFL draft. For much of the League’s history, therefore, a player, irrespective of whether he actually attended college or not, was barred from entering the draft until he was at least four football seasons removed from high school. The eligibility rules were relaxed in 1990, however, to permit a player to enter the draft three full seasons after that player’s high school graduation.

Clarett “graduated high school on December 11, 2001, two-thirds of the way through the 2001 NFL season” and is a season shy of the three necessary to qualify under the draft’s eligibility rules. Clar-ett Decl. at ¶ 6. Unwilling to forego the prospect of a year of lucrative professional play or run the risk of a career-compromising injury were his entry into the draft delayed until next year, Clarett filed this suit alleging that the NFL’s draft eligibility rules are an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15.

Because the major source of the parties’ factual disputes is the relationship between the challenged eligibility rules and the current collective bargaining agreement governing the terms and conditions of employment for NFL players, some elaboration on both the collective bargaining agreement and the eligibility rules is warranted. The current collective bargaining agree *127 ment between the NFL and its players union was negotiated between the NFL Management Council (“NFLMC”), which is the NFL member clubs’ multi-employer bargaining unit, and the NFL Players Association (“NFLPA”), the NFL players’ exclusive bargaining representative. This agreement became effective in 1993 and governs through 2007. Despite the collective bargaining agreement’s comprehensiveness with respect to, inter alia, the manner in which the NFL clubs select rookies through the draft and the scheme by which rookie compensation is determined, the eligibility rules for the draft do not appear in the agreement.

At the time the collective bargaining agreement became effective, the eligibility rules appeared in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, which had last been amended in 1992. 7 Specifically, Article XII of the Bylaws (“Article XII”), entitled “Eligibility of Players,” prohibited member clubs from selecting any college football player through the draft process who had not first exhausted all college football eligibility, graduated from college, or been out of high school for five football seasons. Clubs were further barred from drafting any person who either did not attend college, or attended college but did not play football, unless that person had been out of high school for four football seasons. Article XII, however, also included an exception that permitted clubs to draft players who had received “Special Eligibility” from the NFL Commissioner. In order to qualify for such special eligibility, a player was required to submit an application before January 6 of the year that he wished to enter the draft and “at least three NFL seasons must have elapsed since the player was graduated from high school.” The Commissioner’s practice apparently was, and still is, to grant such an application so long as three full football seasons have passed since a player’s high school graduation. 8 Appellant’s Brief, at 7 n. 3.

Although the eligibility rules do not appear in the text of the collective bargaining agreement, the NFL Constitution and Bylaws that at the time of the agreement’s adoption contained the eligibility rules are mentioned in three separate provisions relevant to our discussion. First, in Article III, Section 1 (Scope of Agreement), the collective bargaining agreement states:

This Agreement represents the complete understanding of the parties as to all subjects covered herein, and there will be no change in the terms and conditions of this Agreement without mutual consent .... [T]he NFLPA and the Management Council waive any rights to bargain with one another concerning any subject covered or not covered in this Agreement for the duration of this Agreement, including the provisions of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws; provided, however, that if any proposed change in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws during the term of this Agreement could significantly affect the terms and conditions of employment of NFL players, then the [NFLMC] will give the NFLPA notice of and negotiate the proposed change in good faith.

*128 (emphasis added). Second, Article IV, Section 2 (No Suit) provides generally that “neither [the NFLPA] nor any of its members” will sue or support a suit “relating to the presently existing provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL as they are currently operative and administered.” Third, Article IX, Section 1 (Non-Injury Grievance) makes “[a]ny dispute ... involving the interpretation of, application of, or compliance with, ... any applicable provision of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws pertaining to terms and conditions of employment of NFL players” subject to the grievance procedures afforded under the collective bargaining agreement.

Before the collective bargaining agreement became effective, a copy of the Constitution and Bylaws, as amended in 1992, was provided by the NFL to the NFLPA along with a letter, dated May 6,1993, that “confirm[ed] that the attached documents are the presently existing provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL referenced in Article IV, Section 2, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.” The May 6 letter was signed by representatives of the NFL and the NFLPA. The only other evidence presented to the district court by the NFL concerning the negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement were the two declarations of Peter Ruocco, Senior Vice President of Labor Relations at the NFLMC. In the second declaration, Ru-occo attests that “[d]uring the course of collective bargaining that led to the [collective bargaining agreement], the [challenged] eligibility rule itself was the subject of collective bargaining.” Ruocco Deck at ¶ 8.

In 2003, ten years into the life of the collective bargaining agreement, Article XII was amended. Although the substance of most of the eligibility rules was retained, the “Special Eligibility” provision was removed and substituted with the following 9 :

If four seasons have not elapsed since the player discontinued high school, he is ineligible for selection, but may apply to the Commissioner for special eligibility.

The Bylaws then refer to a separate memorandum issued by the Commissioner on February 16, 1990 — three years before the current collective bargaining agreement became effective — pursuant to his authority under the Bylaws to establish necessary policies and procedures. That memorandum states that “Applications for special eligibility for the 1990 draft will be accepted only from college players as to whom three full college seasons have elapsed since their high school graduation.” (emphasis added). 10 It is this version of the eligibility rules that the NFL relies upon in refusing Clarett special eligibility for this year’s draft, and it is this version of *129 the eligibility rules that Clarett seeks to invalidate.

After Clarett filed this suit in September 2003, the parties conducted limited discovery and thereafter moved for summary judgment. Clarett sought summary judgment on the merits of his antitrust claim. The NFL asserted that Clarett lacked “antitrust standing” and that, as a matter of law, the eligibility rules were immune from antitrust attack by virtue of the non-statutory labor exemption. On February 5, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Clarett and ordered him eligible to enter this year’s draft. Clarett, 306 F.Supp.2d at 410-11. First, relying on the test articulated by the Eighth Circuit in Mackey v. National Football League, 543 F.2d 606 (8th Cir.1976), the district court rejected the NFL’s argument that the antitrust laws are inapplicable to the eligibility rules because they fall within the non-statutory labor exemption to the antitrust laws. Clarett, 306 F.Supp.2d at 397. Specifically, the district court held that the exemption does not apply because the eligibility rules: 1) are not mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, 2) affect only “complete strangers to the bargaining relationship,” and 3) were not shown to be the product of arm’s-length negotiations between the NFL and its players union. Id. at 393-97.

Second, the district court ruled against the NFL on its contention that Clarett lacked standing because he had not demonstrated a sufficient “antitrust injury” to maintain this suit, holding that the “inability to compete in the market” for NFL players’ services is sufficient injury for antitrust purposes. Id. at 403.

Third, on the merits of Clarett’s antitrust claim, the district court found .that the eligibility rules were so “blatantly anti-competitive” that only a “quick look” at the NFL’s procompetitive justifications was necessary to reach the conclusion that the eligibility. rules were unlawful under the antitrust laws. Id. at 408. The NFL had argued that because the -eligibility rules prevent less physically and emotionally mature players from entering the league, they justify any incidental anticompetitive effect on the market for NFL players. Id. In so doing, according to the NFL, the eligibility rules guard against less-prepared and younger players entering the League and risking injury to themselves, prevent the sport from being devalued by the higher number of injuries to those young players, protect its member clubs from .having to bear the costs of such injuries, and discourage aspiring amateur football players from enhancing their physical condition through unhealthy methods. Id. at 408-09. The district court held that all of these justifications were inadequate as a matter of law, -concluding that the NFL’s purported concerns could be addressed through less restrictive but equally effective means. Id. at 410. Finding that the eligibility rules violated the antitrust laws, the district court entered judgment in favor of Clarett, and, recognizing that this year’s draft was then just over two months away, issued an order deeming Clarett eligible to participate in the draft. .

The NFL subsequently moved for a stay pending appeal, which the district court denied. Clarett v. Nat'l Football League, 306 F.Supp.2d 411 (S.D.N.Y.2004). After filing a notice of appeal, the NFL petitioned to have the appeal heard on an expedited basis and again moved to stay the district court’s order pending appeal. On March 30, 2004, we agreed to hear the appeal on an expedited basis and set a substantially compressed briefing schedule. Following oral argument on April 19, we granted the NFL’s motion to stay the *130 district court’s order, citing the NFL’s “likelihood of success on the merits” and noting that the resulting harm to Clarett was mitigated by the NFL’s promise to “hold a supplemental draft for [Clarett] and all others similarly situated” were the district court’s judgment affirmed. Order of April 19, 2004. Clarett thereafter made successive applications to two Justices of the Supreme Court to lift this Court’s stay order. Both applications were denied. Clarett did not participate in the NFL draft held on April 24 and 25, 2004.

DISCUSSION

Clarett argues that the NFL clubs are horizontal competitors for the labor of professional football players and thus may not agree that a player will be hired only after three full football seasons have elapsed following that player’s high school graduation. That characterization, however, neglects that the labor market for NFL players is organized around a collective bargaining relationship that is provided for and promoted by federal labor law, and that the NFL clubs, as a multi-em-ployer bargaining unit, can act jointly in setting the terms and conditions of players’ employment and the rules of the sport without risking antitrust liability. For those reasons, the NFL argues that federal labor law favoring and governing the collective bargaining process precludes the application of the antitrust laws to its eligibility rules. We agree.

The district court’s denial of the NFL’s motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo, and all factual inferences are drawn in favor of Clarett. See Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 122 (2d Cir.2004).

I.

Although “[t]he interaction of the [antitrust laws] and federal labor legislation is an area of law marked more by controversy than by clarity,” Wood v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, 809 F.2d 954, 959 (2d Cir.1987) (citing R. Gorman, Labor Law, Unionization and Collective Bargaining 631-35 (1976)), it has long been recognized that in order to accommodate the collective bargaining process, certain concerted activity among and between labor and employers must be held to be beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. See United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 61 S.Ct. 463, 85 L.Ed. 788 (1941); Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 60 S.Ct. 982, 84 L.Ed. 1311 (1940). Courts, therefore, have carved out two categories of labor exemptions to the antitrust laws: the so-called statutory and non-statutory exemptions. 11 We deal here only with the non-statutory exemption.

The non-statutory exemption has been inferred “from federal labor statutes, which set forth a national labor policy favoring free and private collective bargaining; which require good-faith bargaining over wages, hours, and working conditions; and which delegate related rulemaking and interpretive authority to the National Labor Relations Board.” Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231, 236, 116 S.Ct. 2116, *131 135 L.Ed.2d 521 (1996) (internal citations omitted). The exemption exists not only to prevent the courts from usurping the NLRB’s function of “determinfing], in the area of industrial conflict, what is or is not a ‘reasonable’ practice,” but also “to allow meaningful collective bargaining to take place” by protecting “some restraints on competition imposed through the bargaining process” from antitrust scrutiny. Id. at 237, 116 S.Ct. 2116.

The Supreme Court has never delineated the precise boundaries of the exemption, and what guidance it has given as to its application has come mostly in cases in which agreements between an employer and a labor union were alleged to have injured or eliminated a competitor in the employer’s business or product market. In the face of such allegations, the Court has largely permitted antitrust scrutiny in spite of any resulting detriment to the labor policies favoring collective bargaining.

In the first case to deal squarely with the non-statutory exemption, Allen Bradley Co. v. Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 325 U.S. 797, 65 S.Ct. 1533, 89 L.Ed. 1939 (1945), the New York City electrical workers union negotiated a series of agreements in which local manufacturers and contractors agreed to deal only with other manufacturers and contractors that employed the union’s members. Id. at 799-800, 65 S.Ct. 1533. A non-local manufacturer that was excluded from the market as a result successfully sued under the antitrust laws, establishing that these agreements were “but one element in a far larger program in which contractors and manufacturers united with one another to monopolize all the business in New York City, to bar all other business men from that area, and to charge the public prices above a competitive level.” Id. at 809, 65 S.Ct. 1533. Although the Court recognized that the union sought the agreements out of “a desire to get and hold jobs for themselves at good wages and under high working standards,” it held that the non-statutory exemption did not apply where unions “combine with employers and with manufacturers of goods to restrain competition in, and to monopolize the marketing of, such goods.” Id. at 798, 65 S.Ct. 1533.

Twenty years later, the Court considered two cases dealing with the non-statutory exemption. Although the Court again refused to apply the non-statutory exemption in the first, United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965), it did apply the exemption in Local No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676, 85 S.Ct. 1607, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965). In Pennington, a small coal mine operator claimed that a miners union violated the antitrust laws by agreeing with large coal mine companies that the union would demand a higher wage scale from small coal mine operators in an effort to drive the small mine operators from the market. Echoing its decision in Allen Bradley, the Court held that while “a union may make wage agreements with a multi-employer bargaining unit and may in pursuance of its own union interests seek to obtain the same terms from other employers” without incurring antitrust liability, “a union forfeits its exemption from the antitrust laws when it is clearly shown that it has agreed with one set of employers to impose a certain wage scale on other bargaining units.” Pennington, 381 U.S. at 665, 85 S.Ct. 1585.

The Court, however, reached a different result in Jewel Tea, which involved a challenge to a collective bargaining agreement between the butchers union and meat sellers in Chicago, whereby the meat sellers *132 agreed to limit the operation of meat counters to certain hours. See Jewel Tea, 381 U.S. at 679-80, 85 S.Ct. 1607. The union sought the restriction not only to cabin the hours in the workday but also to diminish the threat posed to members’ job security by evening sales of prepackaged meat and the nighttime use of unskilled labor. Id. at 682, 85 S.Ct. 1607. Jewel Tea was one of the meat sellers that signed the agreement. It did so, however, only under pressure from the union and then challenged the hours restriction on antitrust grounds. Jewel Tea notably did not allege that the hours restriction eliminated competition among the meat sellers that made up the bargaining unit or that the union sought the hours restriction from Jewel Tea at the behest of other meat sellers. Id. at 688, 85 S.Ct. 1607.

A majority of the Court agreed that the hours restriction fell within the non-statutory exemption, but the Justices disagreed as to the reason for applying the exemption. Justice White, writing for himself and two other Justices, advocated that the application of the nori-statutory exemption should be determined by balancing the “interests of union members” served by the restraint against “its relative impact on the product market.” Id. at 690 n. 5, 85 S.Ct. 1607. Applying that test, Justice White held that the hours restriction was so intimately related to wages, hours and working conditions that the unions’ successful attempt to obtain that provision through bona fide, arm’s-length bargaining in pursuit of their own labor union policies, and not at the behest of or in combination with nonlabor groups, falls within the protection of the national labor policy and is therefore exempt from the Sherman Act.

Id. at 689-90, 85 S.Ct. 1607. 12

Concurring in Jewel Tea but dissenting in Pennington, Justice Goldberg, writing for himself and two Justices, found that no such balancing was necessary. Because federal labor law obligates the union and employer to bargain in good faith and permits unions to strike over those issues that relate to workers’ wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment, Justice Goldberg found that it would “stultify the congressional scheme” to expose collective bargaining agreements on these so-called mandatory bargaining subjects to antitrust liability. Id. at 712, 85 S.Ct. 1585. Therefore, according to Justice Goldberg, all “collective bargaining activity concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining under the [labor laws] is not subject to the antitrust laws.” Id. at 710, 85 S.Ct. 1585.

Another ten years later, in Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, 421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975), the Court held the non-statutory exemption did not protect a union’s agreement with a contractor that bound the contractor to deal only with subcontractors that employed the union’s members. The challenged agreement was not a collective bargaining agreement, and the union did not represent the contractor’s employees; rather, the contractor acceded to the agreement only after the union picketed one of its facilities. Id. at 619, 95 S.Ct. 1830. The Court refused to apply the exemption to this “kind of direct restraint on the business market[, which] has sub *133 stantial anticompetitive effects, both actual and potential, that would not follow naturally from the elimination of competition over wages and working conditions.” Id. at 625, 95 S.Ct. 1830.

Contending that these cases establish the applicable boundaries of the non-statutory exemption to be applied in the present case, Clarett argues that the NFL’s eligibility rules lack all of the characteristics that led Justice White to apply the exemption in Jewel Tea. Clarett, furthermore, maintains that the boundaries of the exemption were properly identified in, and thus we should follow, the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Mackey v. National Football League, 543 F.2d 606 (8th Cir.1976). Mackey involved a challenge brought by NFL players to the League’s so-called “Rozelle Rule,” which required NFL clubs to compensate any club from which they hired away a player whose contract had expired. Id. at 609. Presenting arguments not dissimilar from those made in the present case, the players in Mackey alleged that the Rozelle Rule constituted an unlawful conspiracy amongst the NFL clubs to restrain players’ abilities freely to contract their services. The NFL, for its part, asserted that the Rozelle Rule was exempt from the antitrust laws by virtue of its inclusion in the League’s collective bargaining agreement with the players union. Noting that the Supreme Court had to that point applied the non-statutory exemption only in Jeivel Tea, the Eighth Circuit gleaned from the Court’s decisions, and Justice White’s opinion in Jeivel Tea in particular, that in order to fall within the non-statutory exemption, a restraint must: 1) primarily affect only the parties to the collective bargaining relationship, 2) concern a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, and 3) be the product of bona fide arm’s-length bargaining. Id. at 614. Although the Eighth Circuit found that the Rozelle Rule satisfied the first two prongs, it nonetheless refused to apply the exemption after finding that the Rozelle Rule was not the product of arm’s-length negotiations. Id. at 615-16. Noting that the Rozelle Rule predated the advent of the collective bargaining relationship between the NFL and its players union, the Eighth Circuit found that the record lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that the players union had received some quid pro quo in exchange for including the Rule in the collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 616. For that reason, the Eighth Circuit held that the Rozelle Rule did not fall within the non-statutory exemption, and the Rule was invalidated on antitrust grounds. Id. at 621-22.

Relying on Mackey, the district court below held that the non-statutory exemption provides no protection to the NFL’s draft eligibility rules, because the eligibility rules fail to satisfy any of the three Mackey factors. Clarett, 306 F.Supp.2d at 397. Specifically, the district court found that the rules exclude strangers to the bargaining relationship from-entering the draft, do not concern -wages, hours or working conditions of current NFL players, and were not the product of bona fide arm’s-length negotiations during the process that culminated in the current collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 395-97.

We, however, have never regarded the Eighth Circuit’s test in Mackey as defining the appropriate limits of the non-statutory exemption. See Local 210, Laborers’ Int’l Union, 844 F.2d at 80 n. 2 (declining to follow Mackey in favor of balancing test articulated in Jewel Tea); see also United States Football League v. Nat'l Football League, 842 F.2d 1335, 1372 (2d Cir.1988) (recognizing Mackey is “not consistent with our decision in Wood v. National Basketball Ass’n”). Moreover, we disagree with the Eighth Circuit’s assumption in Mackey that the Supreme Court’s deci *134 sions in Connell, Jewel Tea, Pennington, and Allen Bradley dictate the appropriate boundaries of the non-statutory exemption for cases in which the only alleged anti-competitive effect of the challenged restraint is on a labor market organized around a collective bargaining relationship. Indeed, we have previously recognized that these decisions are of limited assistance in determining whether an athlete can challenge restraints on the market for professional sports players imposed through a collective bargaining process, because all “involved injuries to employers who asserted that they were being excluded from competition in the product market.” 13 Wood v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, 809 F.2d 954, 963 (2d Cir.1987) (emphasis in original). 14

Clarett does not contend that the NFL’s draft eligibility rules work to the disadvantage of the NFL’s competitors in the market for professional football or in some manner protect the NFL’s dominance in that market. Compare N. Am. Soccer League v. Nat’l Football League, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir.1982). He challenges the eligibility rules only on the ground that they are an unreasonable restraint upon the market for players’ services. See Clarett, 306 F.Supp.2d at 399. Thus, we need not decide here whether the Maxikey factors aptly characterize the limits of the exemption in cases in which employers use agreements with their unions to disadvantage their competitors in the product or business market, because our cases have counseled a decidedly different approach where, as here, the plaintiff complains of a restraint upon a unionized labor market characterized by a collective bargaining relationship with a multi-employer bargaining unit. See Caldwell v. Am. Basketball Ass’n, 66 F.3d 523 (2d Cir.1995); Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Williams, 45 F.3d 684 (2d Cir.1995); Wood v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, 809 F.2d 954 (2d Cir.1987). Moreover, as the discussion below makes clear, the suggestion that the Mackey factors provide the proper guideposts in this case simply does not comport with the Supreme Court’s most recent treatment of the non-statutory labor exemption in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231, 116 S.Ct. 2116, 135 L.Ed.2d 521 (1996).

II.

Our decisions in Caldwell, Williams, and Wood all involved players’ claims that the *135 concerted action of a professional sports league imposed a restraint upon the labor market for players’ services and thus violated the antitrust laws. In each case, however, we held that the non-statutory labor exemption defeated the players’ claims. Our analysis in each case was rooted in the observation that the relationships among the defendant sports leagues and their players were governed by collective bargaining agreements and thus were subject to the carefully structured regime established by federal labor laws. We reasoned that to permit antitrust suits against sports leagues on the ground that their concerted action imposed a restraint upon the labor market would seriously undermine many of the policies embodied by these labor laws, including the congressional policy favoring collective bargaining, the bargaining parties’ freedom of contract, and the widespread use of multi-employer bargaining units. Subsequent to our decisions in this area, similar reasoning led the Supreme Court in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231, 116 S.Ct. 2116, 135 L.Ed.2d 521 (1996), to hold that the non-statutory exemption protected the NFL’s unilateral implementation of new salary caps for developmental squad players after its collective bargaining agreement with the NFL players union had expired and n