This document provides a summary of the landmark case Brady v. NFL between the National Football League and professional football players. It discusses the long history of legal battles between the two sides primarily over antitrust and labor laws. In 2011, the players voted to end their union status and sued the NFL over a lockout, seeking a preliminary injunction. The court considered whether to grant the injunction based on four factors and determined the NFL did not sufficiently show they were likely to succeed in arguing the lockout was legal, so it ruled in favor of the players.

1. 1
BRADY v. NFL
BRADY v. NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE:
Case Analysis
Sports Law – SPG 305
Professor Robert Romano
April 27, 2015
Nicholas T. Vomero

2. 2
BRADY v. NFL
INTRODUCTION
The National Football League (“NFL”) and the professional football players have had
a long history of litigation between them. This history of disagreements came to a
culmination in the case of Brady v. NFL. This case was a landmark legal battle that raised
complex, unprecedented issues involving antitrust and labor law (Feldman, 2012). The
application of labor law in this particular case can have a profound effect on other sports
leagues and how they govern their players (Feldman, 2012).
This article analyzes the landmark case of Brady v. NFL and the issues that have led
to this legal battle. Furthermore, this article will examine some of the history between the
two sides that has played a significant role in the development of this case. In order to
understand the magnitude of Brady v. NFL, it is important to highlight the historical events
that have shaped this case.
HISTORY
The NFL and the professional football players’ have a long history of legal battles.
These battles were over numerous issues. However, the majority of them fall under
antitrust and labor law. A brief summary of the history of events that have led to this
landmark case will help outline the significance of this case.
In 1992, a jury granted a verdict in favor of several players, determining that the
league’s limits on the ability of the players to move from team to team after their contracts
expired violated section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (United Stated Court of Appeals,

3. 3
BRADY v. NFL
2011). As a result of the success of this case, this prompted other players to take action as
well. Shortly thereafter, several other players brought another antitrust action against the
NFL seeking to prevent the league from imposing any restrictions on the movement of
players whose contracts expired on February 1, 1993 (United Stated Court of Appeals,
2011). The results of this case were, “In February 1993, the League and a class of NFL
players entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to resolve that litigation. The
settlement agreement provided that the district court would retain jurisdiction over
enforcement of the agreement” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). Later in 1993, the
National Football League Players Associate, representing the rights of the athletes, and the
National Football League Management council, the bargaining unit of the NFL owners,
reached a new collective bargaining agreement (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011).
However, in May 2008, the NFL exercised its right to opt out of the last two years of their
most recent agreement (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). As a result, the two sides
had to negotiate a new contract. These negotiations dragged on for many years, but a new
contract was never agreed upon. In an effort to get the NFLPA to agree to their terms, the
NFL owners decided to use a lockout of the players as a tactic in their negotiations (United
Stated Court of Appeals, 2011).
As a response to the lockout tactic by the NFL owners, the players filed a complaint
alleging that the lockout from the NFL owners violated the federal antitrust laws and state
contract and tort laws (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). They strongly believed that
this tactic used by the NFL owners was not fair and unjust. The lockout from the NFL
owners stated that, “players under contract that, among other things, they were not

4. 4
BRADY v. NFL
permitted to enter team facilities except in connection with a non-team or a charitable
event, they would not receive compensation or health insurance benefits from their teams,
and they were not permitted to play, practice, workout, attend meetings, or consult with
team medical or training staff at team facilities” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). The
NFL owners did not want to give up their power to the football players. It seems as though
the NFL was deliberately trying to put the players in a position where they have no
alternatives. The lockout tactic was exactly that. They wanted to lock the players out in
order to get them to agree to the NFL owners’ terms of the contracts. As a result, they were
creating an anticompetitive market. This gave the NFL players a legitimate reason to take
action against the National Football League.
After receiving briefs and affidavits from the parties and hearing the oral arguments
from both sides, the court had come to a decision. As expected, the court ruled in favor of
the players. The court determined that, “the Players had demonstrated that they were
suffering, and would continue to suffer, irreparable harm as a result of the lockout, that the
harm to the Players outweighed any harm an injunction would cause the NFL, and that the
Players had a fair chance of success on the merits of their lawsuit” (United Stated Court of
Appeals, 2011). In other words, the court recognized the fact that the players were the ones
who were unfairly suffering from the lockout. The players had no other available options to
them and as a result the court ruled in their favor.
In conclusion of this section, it is clear that the National Football League and the
National Football League Players Association have had a long history of legal battles. The

5. 5
BRADY v. NFL
conflicts between the two sides were over a number of different issues, however, the
majority of these issues are related to labor and antitrust laws. First, in 1992, the courts
ruled in favor of the players stating that league’s limits on the ability of the players to move
from team to team after their contracts expired violated section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). Next, in 1993, another antitrust case was
brought against the National Football league, seeking to prevent the league from imposing
any restrictions on the movement of players whose contracts expired on February 1, 1993
(United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). Once again, the court ruled in favor of the players.
Furthermore, later that year, the two sides had finally agreed to a new collective bargaining
agreement. This agreement stood for a long time, only being slightly adjusted every few
years. However, when it came time to renew the agreement in 2008, the National Football
League decided they did not want to renew this agreement and thus decided to lockout the
players. This history of animosity between the NFL and the players has led us to this
paramount case. What follows in the next section is the details of this case, the arguments
of both sides and what affects it has had on the sport.
BRADY v. NFL FACTS
In March 2011, the National Football League Players Association (“NFLPA”)
informed the NFL that it would not be renewing their collective bargaining agreement
unless major changes were made (Feldman, 2012). All of the players felt that the NFL was
treating them unfairly. As stated here, “A substantial majority of the players voted to end
the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA and to restructure itself as a professional

6. 6
BRADY v. NFL
trade association instead of a union” (Feldman, 2012). As a result of this, the National
Football League responded by locking out all of the players. Simply, this meant that they
were not permitted to enter team facilities, they would not receive compensation or health
insurance benefits from their teams, and they were not permitted to play, practice,
workout, attend meetings, or consult with team medical or training staff at team facilities
(United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). In order to end this lockout, the players filed for a
preliminary injunction. If granted, the injunction would immediately end the lockout and
allow the players to receive their compensations as well as attend their team facilities.
In deciding this matter, the court must analyze a number of different issues that are
relevant to the case. These four factors that the court considered were: “(1) whether the
stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)
whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the
stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where
the public interest lies” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011).
First, I will analyze the issue of the merits of the case. Simply put, the probability
that they will win their case at trial. The court immediately felt that the National Football
League’s argument, “fails to satisfy its burden” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). In
other words, the court did not feel that the National Football League has made a strong
enough case. A vital point of the NFL’s argument relies on the applicability of the Norris-
LaGuardia Act. This Act deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief
(United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). The NFL was arguing that the courts did not have

7. 7
BRADY v. NFL
the right to end their lockout. However, the court felt that the NFL did not correctly
interpret this law. The court explains that the Act is, “phrased in intentionally broad terms
and contains an expansive definition of the term “labor dispute”” (United Stated Court of
Appeals, 2011). Moreover, when the NFL interpreted this law, they lost sight of the main
principle purpose behind the Act (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). As a result of this,
the court did not support the NFL’s arguments. The court stated, “the Norris-LaGuardia Act
does not apply in a situation where the Players are no longer represented by the union, I
would conclude that the NFL did not make the necessary strong showing of likelihood of
success on the merits” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). The failure to prove the
merits of their argument significantly injured the NFL’s case and the likelihood that they
will win.
Second, the court analyzed the issue of irreparable harm. The court defined
irreparable harm as, “In order to demonstrate irreparable harm, a party must show that the
harm is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for
equitable relief” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). In other words, the National
Football League Players Association must prove that, if the lockout were to continue, they
are guaranteed to suffer from harm that is so great that they will not be able to repair it.
They must demonstrate a robust argument that proves the harm will be irrevocable.
Moreover, this harm must be shown to be imminent. Simply put, the damage that they will
incur will happen immediately. The court concluded that economic loss is not applicable in
this case (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). The only way that economic loss can be
used to bolster their argument was if the economic loss threatens the very existence of the

8. 8
BRADY v. NFL
NFL’s business (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). Clearly, the court did not believe
that the existence of such a lucrative business, such as the National Football League, would
be threatened.
Finally, the court concluded that, “Whatever harm may be said to befall the NFL
during the pendency of the expedited appeal stands in stark contract to the irreparable
harm suffered by the Players” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). In order to come to
this conclusion, the court detailed the short life span of a professional athlete’s playing
career. They stated that, “Even the brief stay occasioned during this expedited appeal will
deprive the Players of irreplaceable opportunities to develop their skills as football players
and to otherwise advance their NFL careers” (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011).
Furthermore, an athlete’s skills are diminished and sometimes even lost unless they are
given an opportunity to practice and refine their skills to a certain level of proficiency
(United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). This factor of a limited playing career played a
major role in the court’s decision. Finally, the court announced that, “Due to the irreparable
harm presently incurred by the Players, compared with the limited harm, if any, suffered by
the NFL, I believe the balance of harms weighs heavily in the Players’ favor” (United Stated
Court of Appeals, 2011). As we can see, the NFL did not have enough evidence that the
harm they would incur will be greater than that of the players. As a result, their argument
was weakened.
Next, the court had to decide if the issuance of the stay would injure the other
parties involved in the case. In this situation, the players once again argued that they are

9. 9
BRADY v. NFL
suffering irreparable harm as a result of the lockout and the grant of a stay would subject
them to continuing harm (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). Moreover, the players
argued that even if the case were decided in the off-season, they are irreparably injured
because they will not be able to participate in in off-season practice and classroom sessions
(United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011).
On the other side, the NFL argues that it is “irreparably harmed by the district
court’s injunction, because its ability to maintain the lockout is essential to the League’s
negotiating position in an ongoing dispute with the Players” (United Stated Court of
Appeals, 2011). Furthermore, the NFL claims, “Player transactions that will occur under the
injunction-trades, free agent signings, and roster cuts of players under contract- will cause
irreparable harm to the league… because it will be impossible to restore the status quo”
(United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). In this factor, the court decided to support the NFL.
They concluded that the lockout would remain in effect until the entire case has been
resolved in the courtroom. However, in order to mitigate damage to both parties, the court
decided that this case will be argued on a highly expedited schedule.
Lastly, the court had to weigh the factor of public interest. In this situation, the
public would benefit from a resolution between the parties because it would allow football
to be played (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). However, the court decided that it did
not want to differentiate between the public interest and the proper application of the
federal law regarding injunctions (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011). They concluded
that the factor of public interest favored the players more than the NFL. Moreover, they

10. 10
BRADY v. NFL
stated that the NFL’s failure to make the necessary showing on the merits detracts from the
NFL’s argument in regards to this factor (United Stated Court of Appeals, 2011).
In conclusion of this case, we can see that there are many factors that the courts had
to weigh in order to decide this case. First, they had to weigh the issue of whether the
applicant has made a strong enough case that they will succeed in trial. In this factor, they
decided that the NFL did not show a great a strong enough argument to win this case.
Second, they examined the issue of irreparable harm. Once again, they ruled in favor of the
players. They stated that the harm that the players would suffer is much greater than any
harm that the NFL would suffer. In this factor, they observed the fact that a professional
athletes career is short and fragile, thus they will suffer harm from not being able to
practice. Third, the court examined how the issuance of a stay would injure both parties
involved. After weighing the arguments of both sides, the court concluded that the stay
would remain in effect so that the judicial process can be completely utilized. However, the
process would be on a highly expedited schedule. Lastly, the issue of public interest had to
be taken into account. Once again, they determined that the public would benefit from a
resolution between the two parties. Finally, the appellate sent the case back to the district
court so the case could be resolved. On July 25, 2011, the two parties settled the case
(Feldman, 2012). The players eventually reformed the National Football League Players
Association as a union and reached a new collective bargaining agreement with the owners
on August 4, 2011 (Feldman, 2012).

11. 11
BRADY v. NFL
As previously stated, this legal battle raised unprecedented, complex issues
involving antitrust and labor law. The effects of this case are ubiquitous in the sports
industry. This case represents a core disagreement regarding the role of antitrust and labor
law than can be seen in all professional sports (Feldman, 2012). While antitrust law
encourages competition and prohibits cooperation among competitors, labor law, by
contrast, encourages cooperation among employee and between employers and employees
(Feldman, 2012). The fact that the courts ruled that collective bargaining and other
agreements between players and teams are not subject to the law of antitrust, will impact
all other sports leagues and how they negotiate with their players. The fact that the major
sports leagues are unique, in that the player have no other option to play anywhere and
earn as much money as they could in a league like the NFL, plays a major role in antitrust
and more specifically a lockout (Feldman, 2012). This lack of competition for the players
deprives them of the ability to threaten to defect to a rival employer (Feldman, 2012). I
believe that this is the most significant issue in this case. In the future, this situation is likely
to arise again, whether it is in another league or in the NFL. However, if the situation does
arise again, the sports unions will refer back to this case to help support their own
arguments. Furthermore, we will see the effects of this case on other professional sports
unions, and that is why this case was so important.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion of this paper, I highlighted the history of legal battles between the NFL
and its players as well as the paramount case of Brady v. NFL. I also examined the issues

12. 12
BRADY v. NFL
that the courts had to consider in order to make a decision. As I already stated, the stay was
granted until the court could render all the facts and make an informed decision. However,
in the meantime, the players and the NFL owners came to an agreement. This case was so
important because of the issues being ruled on in professional sports, antitrust and labor
law. Finally, the results of this case will be seen in other sports unions as they fight for their
rights and the significance of this case will be seen in many years to come.

13. 13
BRADY v. NFL
References
Feldman, G. (2012). Antitrust Versus Labor Law in Professional Sports: Balancing the
Scales after Brady v. NFL and Anthony v. NBA
United States Court of Appeals. (2011, May 16). BRADY v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE,
LLC. Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-
circuit/1567969.html