Butt Out Arlen (Regarding Former Philadelphia Eagle Terrell Owens)

Joyce Comments: Senator Arlen Specter appears to have momentarily forgotten that he is not Pennsylvania's Attorney General anymore and is butting in where he is not wanted. This drama with former Philadelphia Eagle receiver Terrell Owens is a settled matter between Eagles management, the players union, Owens himself. If Specter's concern is of Owens being blacklisted, some Eagles fan he is. Owens showed the National Football League and all it's fans what a conceited jerk he really is. He may be talented on the field, but off it he has a head the size of Rhode Island and a brain the size of an ant through his conduct that hurt the psyche of the team. If his career is over, then it is because of himself. He was treated more then fair by the Eagles. Again, some Eagles fan you are-- you may want to return the $2,000 the Philadelphia Eagles donated to your campaign as you are betraying them with this nonsense of overreaching authority in this antitrust inquiry. Once again butt out, Arlen!


Posted on Tue, Nov. 29, 2005
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13279578.htm


Sparks from Specter in the T.O. case
The senator says the NFL and the Eagles may have violated antitrust laws in punishing the wide receiver.
By Amy Worden and Larry Eichel
Inquirer Staff Writers

Sen. Arlen Specter, ardent Eagles fan and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, yesterday accused the NFL and its Philadelphia franchise of potentially violating antitrust laws in their treatment of Terrell Owens.

Speaking at a news conference in Harrisburg, Specter (R., Pa.) said he was investigating the matter and might refer it to the Senate panel's antitrust subcommittee.

The senator said the league and the Eagles had effectively blacklisted the all-pro wide receiver by forbidding him from playing and by banning other teams from talking to him. He called such treatment "vindictive and inappropriate."

"It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws," Specter said. "The NFL can have whatever rules it wants on authorizing suspension or keeping you on the team for the balance of the year, but they can't violate the law."

Several legal experts consulted yesterday didn't see it that way. They noted that courts generally have held that collective-bargaining agreements - such as the one under which Owens was disciplined - take precedence over antitrust laws on terms of employment.

"As much as I hate to disagree with the esteemed senator, I don't see an antitrust claim here," said Matthew J. Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University. "We're in the labor arena, not antitrust."

On Nov. 5, the Eagles suspended Owens for four games without pay for conduct "detrimental to the team." The team also made clear its intention to deactivate him with pay after the suspension ended, as it did this past Sunday.

Last week, arbitrator Richard Bloch upheld the team's right to do all of that, saying those steps were in keeping with the labor agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association.

An NFL spokesman commented yesterday that it was "difficult to see" how antitrust laws might have been violated.

Said league spokesman Greg Aiello: "The arbitrator's decision is consistent with our collective-bargaining agreement, and it simply enforced the terms of the player's contract."

Specter said his interest in the antitrust issue was piqued by news yesterday that the Eagles had filed a complaint with the NFL against Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

The complaint accused Jones of "tampering" with Owens' contract by making comments suggesting that the Cowboys might consider signing him.

"I am madder than hell at what he [Owens] has done in ruining the Eagles' season, or doing his utmost to ruin the season," Specter said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract, and the Eagles would be in their rights to not pay him another dime, perhaps even sue him for damages they have sustained.

"But I do not believe, personally, it is appropriate to punish him. He's not committed a crime; he's committed a breach of contract."

Specter added that the NFL has only a limited exemption from antitrust laws, one that allows member teams to share revenues.

But the law professors who study antitrust law and its relation to sports said they were hard-pressed to see what those statutes might have to do with the Owens case.

"To have an antitrust violation, you have a contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade," said Robert McCormick, a law professor at Michigan State University. "The Eagles would have to collude with the 31 other teams to make sure that no one would hire Terrell Owens. And we're not there yet."

If an antitrust issue did exist, the experts said, the contract still would almost surely trump it - under what the courts have established as the "non-statutory labor exemption" to the antitrust laws.

That exemption was at the heart of the federal court decision last year in the case of Maurice Clarett, a former Ohio State University running back who challenged the NFL's rule about when a player is old enough to enter the draft. The court disallowed Clarett's challenge on the grounds that the league and union had established the rule through collective bargaining.

Michael McCann, a sports-law expert at Mississippi College Law School, said the ambiguity of the NFL's collective-bargaining agreement - in not specifying any detailed meaning of conduct "detrimental to the team" - might allow antitrust laws to apply.

The Eagles had no comment on Specter's remarks. Owens and his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, were not available for comment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Larry Eichel at 215-854-2415 or leichel@phillynews.com. Staff writer Bob Brookover contributed to this article.