Business Case Study: Herbert V. Los Angles Raiders

1. As an NFL player in 1988, there are a few challenges that stand in my way of true free agency. The first challenge is the current CBA, which has been in place since 1982 (Chapter 7). At this time the “First Right of Renewal” or “Option Clause” was still in effect. This clause let teams match offers that were made by another team in order to reserve players. Additionally, this CBA allowed team’s to “maintain exclusive rights on a free agent if the player did not receive an offer from another team by paying 110% of his previous salary” (Chapter 7). These provisions are challenges for me because they limit my mobility as a player to go to a new environment where I may get more playing time and/or a larger salary. Another challenge I may
Los Angles Raiders and NFL. In this case, Herbert argued that the participation and enactment of Plan B is a violation of the California Constitution article I, section 1, and Business and Professions Code section 16600 because it restrains the plaintiff from engaging in his lawful profession, trade or business (Chapter 7). Ultimately, the argument I would use is that the owners’ enforcement of Plan B is subject to antitrust violations although it is unlikely that they will rule any different at this point in time. This argument will be effective if it is made after the Players Union is decertified, which aided the same type of argument in 1989 for Freeman McNeil and other
First I must prove that the plaintiff owed a duty to the defendant, my daughter. Second, the defendant breached said duty. Thirdly, I then must establish that my daughter was injured. Then lastly, I must prove that the breach of the duty was the proximate legal cause of my daughter’s injury. Therefore, I will take actions to assert that USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University both owed a duty of care to provide a safe environment free from unnecessary harm for children and young adults to train for gymnastics. As entities of an organized sport, maintaining a safe environment is within the scope of their duties. The defendants breached this duty by employing Nassar after he had been accused multiple times of sexual assault. By employing Nassar, they created an unsafe emotional and physical environment