Does the non-statutory labor exemption save the day?
EDITOR’S NOTE: A version of this article was initially published in Hackney Publications’ Sports Litigation Alert.
While the details and results of the new business arrangement between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf (or some related entity) remain to be seen, many have commented that the relationship is likely to draw antitrust scrutiny. Specifically, there is a concern that the new structure will result in decreased competition (and thus compensation) in the market for the services of professional golfers. This is especially true if the LIV Golf tour disbands, which is uncertain. Nevertheless, recent developments in law and policy might provide the PGA Tour and LIV Golf an avenue to avoid antitrust problems.
The non-statutory labor exemption
There is a tried-and-true method for sports leagues and teams to avoid antitrust scrutiny of restraints on their labor market: the non-statutory labor exemption. The non-statutory labor exemption is a judicially crafted doctrine that exempts rules, policies, and practices of employers that might otherwise violate antitrust law – as long as those rules, practices, and policies are collectively bargained with a union that represents the employees. The purpose of the exemption is to promote collective bargaining and labor peace. Sports leagues and their teams have used this exemption since the 1970s to institute practices such as free agency and contract limitations, salary caps, and drafts.
The non-statutory labor exemption historically would not have applied to the PGA Tour because its member golfers are independent contractors and not employees of the Tour. Because they are not employees, they would not be considered eligible to unionize and collectively bargain under the National Labor Relations Act.
However, that may have changed because of a decision from last year from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, as well as recent changes in policy from the Federal Trade Commission, the federal agency tasked with antitrust enforcement.
The Confederación Hípica case
In Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños, Inc., the First Circuit analyzed whether jockeys at Puerto Rico’s lone horse racing track were exempt from antitrust law when they took collective action intended to improve their pay and working conditions. Among other things, the jockeys refused to race.
The legal analysis in the case concerned the statutory labor exemption, a corollary to the non-statutory labor exemption. As stated by the court, “[t]he statutory labor exemption flows from both the Clayton Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act” and generally provides that employees or laborers who act collectively – such as by striking – do not violate the antitrust laws.
A federal court in Puerto Rico had ruled that the exemption did not apply because the jockeys were independent contractors rather than employees. But the appeals court reversed, holding that “[t]he key question is not whether the jockeys are independent contractors but whether what is at issue is compensation for their labor.” The jockeys here were clearly acting to improve the compensation for their labor and thus were protected by the statutory labor exemption.
Changes in FTC policy
Lina Khan, Chair of the FTC, has been no stranger to controversy during her brief tenure in the role. Ms. Khan has been a vocal critic of the competitive practices of large technology firms and has proposed a rule that would ban noncompete clauses in employment arrangements and apply the ban retroactively.
She also has interesting views on the ability of non-employee workers (independent contractors), to take collective action. In a 2021 letter to the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, Ms. Khan explained that “collective action and organizing by certain workers – including those who have the terms of their work dictated by a firm yet are classified as non-employees – may be susceptible to prosecution under the antitrust laws.” However, she said that she did not believe the FTC’s “scarce resources” should be used to pursue such claims.
In addition to non-enforcement, Ms. Khan’s letter advocated protections for such workers. Specifically, she proposed that Congress
pursue legislative reforms that grant workers greater protections under the antitrust laws. For example, legislation clarifying that labor organizing by workers regarding the terms and conditions of their work is outside the scope of the federal antitrust statutes, regardless of whether the worker is classified as an employee, would remove the threat of antitrust liability resulting from such coordination.
The NBA-ABA precedent
The outcome of the proposed merger between the National Basketball Association and its upstart rival, the American Basketball Association, is instructive. In 1970, NBA players, led by their union President and future Hall of Famer Oscar Robertson, filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the merger. The players obtained a temporary restraining order against the merger after a federal court determined that the “net effect” of the merger “would be to eliminate all competition between them,” resulting in “immediate and irreparable injury” to the players. After several more years of litigation, the case was resolved when the players and the NBA reached a new collective bargaining agreement. The players got a form of free agency and $4,365,000 in damages. Additionally, the ABA folded, and the NBA absorbed four of its clubs.
Implications for the PGA Tour
Numerous golfers who spurned LIV Golf and its lucrative offers to remain on the PGA Tour have expressed their displeasure about the recent developments. These golfers may seek to exert greater collective pressure and have more control moving forward (whether through a union or otherwise). The Confederación Hípica case and FTC Chair Khan’s letter suggest that they could do so without violating antitrust laws. That is, they would be protected by the statutory labor exemption.
The PGA Tour may welcome collective action from the golfers. If the golfers, in some collective capacity, approve of the PGA Tour’s new arrangement with LIV Golf, including the possibility that the LIV Golf tour ceases to exist, then the PGA Tour and LIV Golf would have a strong argument that the arrangement is protected by the non-statutory labor exemption. This is a lesson from the Robertson case.
The PGA Tour was forced to cede some control over professional golf to LIV Golf to avoid purported financial ruin. It now may be forced to cede additional control to its member golfers if it wishes for its new business arrangement to escape antitrust scrutiny.
- Senior Counsel
Chris is an attorney with more than thirteen years of experience at law firms, in-house, and in academia, with extensive expertise in sports, litigation, and labor and employment. He represents and advises employers with respect to ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010