By Dave Roloff Published Apr 24, 2004 at 5:10 AM

{image1} The rights of prisoners from the war on terror. Reproductive rights. Picking a winner in the 2000 presidential election.

These are matters that deserve the time and attention of the United States Supreme Court.

Maurice Clarett's slighting by the NFL, regardless of its merit, is not. The real question in this whole Clarett mess is two-fold: Should members of the Supreme Court take time with sports-related issues and should they even have the authority to govern the rules of professional sports leagues?

As a precursor, basic laws should apply in sports. Murder, for example, will always be illegal. What is being argued is a rule that was collectively bargained by the league and its union.

Clarett is asking the Supreme Court to allow him into a union that does not need to allow or want him to join. The NFL has collectively bargained a rule that does not allow players that have not been out of high school for three years to join their league union. It is not the government's role in this country to make these decisions!

Clarett says that what the NFL is doing is age discrimination. Clarett's lawyer Alan Milstein states that the only thing that is keeping his client out of the draft is a "group boycott" by the NFL owners. If that were the case it would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. The feather in Clarett's cap is that there is precedence supporting Clarett's claim.

In 1971, Haywood v. NBA made it all the way to the Supreme Court and the case's merits are very similar. Spencer Haywood was an All-American basketball player in the late 60's. He signed a contract out of high school with the Denver Rockets of the ABA. Also in 1970, Haywood was drafted by Seattle SuperSonics of the NBA. The NBA blocked Haywood from playing in the league and threatened the Seattle franchise with sanctions for even drafting Haywood. The case traveled through district courts and ultimately landed in the Supreme Court in 1971.

Haywood argued that what the NBA was doing was a "group boycott" and a violation of the Sherman Act. A district court ruling in Denver Rockets v. All-Pro Management agreed with him and issued an injunction allowing Haywood to play. This ruling opened the door for high schoolers like Moses Malone to enter the NBA without playing college basketball.

Clarett has a similar standing to that of Haywood's. The basics of the case are that the league is keeping him from being eligible for the draft because he has not completed a certain period of time after high school. The rule does not specifically state an age, but it is still age discrimination.

With all of that legalese, the Supreme Court should not have a say in what the NFL and its player's union has collectively bargained. It is up to the player's union to make the decision that this rule is unfair and bargain for it in their next agreement with the owners. The fact is the NFLPA does not want high school kids to be eligible for the draft for many reasons - among them being to protect the jobs of aging veterans.

Why is it that one player should be able to infiltrate a system that is agreed upon by hundreds of players and owners? He shouldn't. The NFL does not have an antitrust exemption like the baseball does. Nothing is stopping Clarett from earning his living in a different league. If the NFL was the only league where Clarett could apply his trade and make a wage, then his case would be unbeatable.

This ruling has more ramifications than just Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams. If Justice Ginsburg rules in favor of Clarett, the floodgates will open with players entering the draft that are not ready for the NFL. In fact Clarett is not even ready for the NFL.

The results will be very similar of not worse that what has happened to the NBA. The NFL requires a physical maturity that the NBA does not. High school kids, no matter how good they are, cannot possibly be ready for the NFL. In fact percent of the kids entering the NBA draft either bust or take years to develop -- LeBron James and Carmello Anthony notwithstanding.

If Justice Ginsburg upholds the district court's stay, the first phone call that will be made is from David Stern to the NBAPA's President Billy Hunter. Stern has talked about implementing an age limit of 20-years-old for the NBA. If the ruling comes back that collectively bargained rules cannot be overruled, Stern has his legal support for his age limit. A rule that could eliminate the Leon Smiths of the world and rebuild college basketball.

Regardless of how much money the colleges and universities make off their "student athletes" this is a good rule. Football is a team sport, unlike golf and tennis where young kids usually are the stares. If you can't play in those sports, you don't make any money. In the world of signing bonuses and guaranteed contacts it makes football and basketball a different monster.

Overruling the stay will open up a can of worms that the Supreme Court or government should not be a part of. It would not only change the landscape of the NFL, but would also bring into account any agreement made between a union and its owners - sports related or not. The scope of this decision is larger than people think. Let's hope Justice Ginsburg leaves sleeping dogs lie.

Dave Roloff
Dave was born and raised on the south side of Milwaukee. He is a graduate of UW-Oshkosh where he graduated in Business while playing four years of football. He is a sports junkie who, instead of therapy, just watches the Bucks and the Brewers. Dave is a season ticket holder for the Brewers, Bucks and Packers, as well as a football coach at Greendale High School. Dave still likes to think he still can play baseball but has moved on to the more pedestrian sports of bowling and golf. Dave is a Pisces and it depends on whom he is walking with to determine whether he likes long walks on the beach. Dave writes with an encyclopedic knowledge and a sarcastic flare. Mainly to insure his sanity.