NBA DRAFT ELIGIBILITY RULES: ITS ILLEGAL

Martin Dunham SPM 1010 May 8, 2013

Dunham 1

I. Opening Statement: The United States of America is a country that has prided and established itself on providing fair opportunities at the highest levels. The National Basketball Association (NBA), the preeminent professional basketball league in the country, has grossly violated the rights of young prospective basketball players. Through applying anti-trust and labor laws, we can demonstrate that the NBAs draft eligibility rules are illegal. Looking at the educational and financial aspects as well we can show how the eligibility rules are morally wrong. By removing the NBA age restrictions, we can change its anti-ethical image towards prospective player employment. II. Facts: When the NBA was first created (originally called the Basketball Association of America), draft rules stated you had to be four years removed from high school in order to be eligible to enter the draft. Players are drafted by teams in reverse order based on record. No team may negotiate with a player drafted by another organization (Haywood v. National Basketball Assn.). In 1971, a landmark case dealing with NBA draft eligibility was decided. Former Olympic basketball star Spencer Haywood signed with the American Basketball Association (professional basketball league) after his sophomore season in college. In 1970, he wanted to play in the NBA. A contract was agreed to with the Seattle SuperSonics, despite being only three years removed from high school. The NBA attempted to void the deal and threatened to sanction Seattle. Haywood then filed an anti-trust suit with the NBA, alleging that the NBAs conduct violated the Sherman Act. He was granted an injunction and allowed to play with no consequence to him or the franchise. District Court ruled that Haywood would suffer irreparable injury because part of his playing career will have gone by, his physical skills would deteriorate, and his image would suffer (Haywood v. National Basketball Assn.). The Court of Appeals

Dunham 2

stayed the injunction and then Haywood went to Supreme Court. They upheld the decision made by District Court (Haywood v. National Basketball Assn.). As a result of this decision, the NBA made the hardship case, where a player could enter the draft out of high school if they could prove financial hardship. In 2005, a new Collective Bargaining Agreement was negotiated. After being outspoken for many years on the matter, David Stern finally got his way. The Union reluctantly agreed to Sterns demands of an age limit for the NBA Draft. The age limit was set at 19 years of age, and the player must be, at minimum, one year removed from high school. The 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement kept the requirements. These are the undisputed facts of the case. III. Argument: The most recent case in regards to draft eligibility was Maurice Clarett v. National Football League, decided in 2004. Clarett challenge the NFL rule that stated that a prospective player must be three years removed from high school in order to become eligible for the NFL Draft (Brooks). The District Court ruled in Claretts favor, using a three-part test aimed at testing the legality non-statutory labor exemptions. Called the Mackey Test, this is the main factor in our argument (Brooks). After the Mackey Test failed in the Clarett case, the Court used right reason to determine that the three year rule was an unreasonable restraint of trade (Brooks). The Mackey Test is a three prong test used to determine whether a regulation is protected under the non-statutory labor exemption. In order for the rule to be valid, it has to pass all three prongs of the test; even if one is broken then it is not protected under non-statutory labor exemption. The three parts are (Brooks): 1. Restraint of trade affects only the parties in CBA 2. Topic is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining

Dunham 3

3. Result is result of arms length bargaining By these guidelines, I believe the first two rules are broken. The first point deals with parties in the CBA. There is (and should be) a distinctive difference between agreements affecting current and prospective employees. Despite the CBA being negotiated by the age-limit rule affects only prospective employees. While it is believed there is an expectation of these prospective players to abide by the agreements made by the current players, the perspective players cannot be bound to agreement made when they are not even allowed employment by the league. The second point is about the rule being a mandatory subject of bargaining, and I believe that this age limit was not a mandatory subject in the recent negations. In union-employer negotiations, some mandatory subjects include wages, hours worked, and conditions of employment. In addition, the Commissioner himself is quoted in an interview as saying that this age-limit rule was a topic to be discussed in a later date, that they kept it the same just to get an agreement done. Because saving an already shortened season was more important than reaching an agreement on the age limit, the issue was tabled during the collective bargaining talks."It was sufficiently contentious around that that we agreed to do what all good negotiators do. We referred it to a subcommittee, and we're going to have meetings about it and see how that works out," Stern said (Zillgitt). Saying that a committee will be formed to look into the matter at a later date doesnt show me that this is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Now that the Mackey Test is broken, we can use right reason to show that this rule is a restraint of trade. Just by looking at basic labor law, we see that the NBAs age-limit rule

Dunham 4

violates labor law. States prohibit discrimination of any kind for employment, like age, race, and religious beliefs. New York is a state with these laws in place, and since the NBA office is headquartered in New York, the NBA is required to follow state law (Craggs). The NBA is blatantly violating this rule, and as such, this age-limit rule is illegal and a restraint of trade. Some critics for the rule say that it is good because we are making kids go to school for one year. How helpful is one year of school? Some of these kids know straight away that they are leaving after one year, so what is their motivation for going to class? Yes, they may be making money for the university (although it is the team more than the individual). The money used on educational resources (scholarship money, money for tutors, etc.) could be used on somebody more deserving or needing than a player like John Wall. Also, the colleges and the NCAA are allowed to exploit the players likeness for a year. They get to make money off TV, advertisements, clothing just to name a few things. This is morally wrong to hold back a player for one year an opportunity he may want to take. Even if a player was to go college for a year, he may not qualify out of high school. Recently the NCAA approved to raise the minimum eligibility standards for an athletic scholarship. The standards agreed to: 16 core courses (10 must be completed by beginning of senior year). 7 of 10 must be in English, math, or science 2.3 minimum GPA in the 16 core courses 2.5 minimum GPA for junior college transfer

According to NCAA statistics, 43.1 percent of mens basketball players who enrolled in 2009-10 would not meet the 2016 academic standards. We need to understand that while we as a society place a value on education, some people are not meant for school. If someone wants to

Dunham 5

try to have a career in basketball at 18 years of age, then they should have the opportunity to do so. Telling kids that they have to wait to try and achieve their dream is morally wrong. Finally, there is the financial aspect. As mentioned before, that one year the player could be spending in the NBA is lost income. David Stern has said that players can play in the D-League or Europe, but that is just insulting. European league salaries are about $65,000-$100,000 (Heitner). According to a tweet by Jonathan Givony, the average D-League salary ranges between $15,500-$25,600 (pre-tax), non-guaranteed, with housing (D-League). For some players looking for financial security or help better their familys life neither is comparable to $473,604 minimum salary for a player with 0 years experience in the NBA (2011 CBA). IV. Conclusion The NBA currently holds an anti-ethical and illegal stance towards player employment. Some will say its legal, some will say it is morally right, some will say it helps the kids. For every Kwame Brown, DeSanga Diop, and Sebastian Telfair that the critics will name as busts I can bring out Kevin Pittsnogle, Greg Oden, and Adam Morrison as college stars who didnt pan out as NBA stars. And there are those like Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, and Dwight Howard as hard-working success stories. There is absolutely no reason that can make this eligibility rule at all justifiable.

Dunham 6

Works Cited "2011 CBA Minimum Annual Salary Scale." RealGM Basketball Wiretap RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2013. "Basketball in America." HoopsHype - Articles - Basketball in America. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2013. Brooks, Nathan. Clarett v. National Football League and the Nonstatutory Labor Exemption in Antitrust Suits. N.p.: Cornell University ILR School, 22 June 2004. PDF. Craggs, Tommy. "Another Reason To Scrap The NBA's Age Rule: It's Probably Illegal." Deadspin. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2013. "D-league Salaries This Year." ClutchFans RSS. N.p., 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 May 2013. "Haywood v. National Basketball Assn. - 401 U.S. 1204 (1971)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2013. Heitner, Darren, and Benjamin Haynes, Esq. "NBA D-League vs. European Basketball: Why Don't More Players Go to Europe?" Sports Agent Blog. N.p., 30 July 2012. Web. 01 May 2013. O'Neil, Dana. "Eligibility vs. Academic preparedness." ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 01 May 2013. Zillgitt, Jeff. "NBA Sees Draft Age Limit Good for Business." USATODAY.COM. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2013.