Collusion (was Re: Lockout)

[Kim Malo <kmalo19@idt.net>]

At 01:35 PM 12/1/98 -0500, RSMALL@clarku.edu wrote:
<snip>
>>It's called collusion which has been previously deemed as illegal in a court
>>of law.
>>
>>Cecil
>>
>
>O.K. I understand collusion from the owners point, but can the agents and 
>representatives get together and set prices for their clients,  If so, why 
>isn't this collusion?

Basically because they'd only be setting standards for themselves, not
dictating what others can even do. The difference hinges on the fact that
colluding owners are the ones actually hiring, firing and paying the checks.
Your players and agents would merely be deciding what they will accept, not
dictating if others can even make an offer. People always forget that that's
what really got the baseball owners into trouble over their collusion -not
price fixing per se, which was too tough to prove- but guys like Rich Gedman
who received literally *no* FA offers whatsoever. It's one thing for
everyone to lowball a player on offers (you can make specious arguments
about the player overvaluing themself, etc), but for there to be no offers
whatsoever to what was at the time a fairly valuable looking player was
taken as pretty clear evidence of a plot.

-Kim
Kim Malo
kmalo19@idt.net