Nbpa Case Study

An NLRB decision in favor of the NBPA would have changed the face of the 2011 NBA CBA and impacted the NBA for at least the next decade. An analysis of the NBPA’s complaint and surrounding circumstances demonstrates that it is likely the NLRB would have ruled for the players, and that the labor law route offers players’ unions certain advantages over the antitrust law route.220 The NBA’s refusal to provide the NBPA with requested relevant financial information was likely a violation of NLRA section 8(a)(5) and a refusal to bargain in good faith.221 It is also probable that the NBA engaged in surface bargaining, which was used as a dilatory tactic to halt negotiations until the old CBA expired.222 These bargaining strategies allowed the NBA to institute a lockout and put more
It is likely that these two factors, along with the NLRB’s recent trend of pro-union decisions,223 would have caused the NLRB to rule in the NBPA’s favor when analyzing the NBA’s refusal to bargain in good faith under the totality of the circumstances test.
The NBPA example serves as a case study for future players’ unions and demonstrates why the labor law route to the NLRB may be more beneficial than the antitrust law route through federal court. Even though the NLRB did not make a ruling in the NBPA’s case against the NBA, this issue will certainly arise again with the increasing frequency of lockouts in professional sports.224 The NLRB will have another opportunity to alter the way players’ unions and professional sports leagues approach the collective bargaining