On Monday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued this decision denying former Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett‘s challenge to the National Football League’s rules that prevented him from participating in this year’s draft. Here are the prior posts on the Clarett case.
For a variety of reasons, the Second Circuit’s decision is questionable, including its complete dodge of the issue that Americans are generally free to make their own decisions on employment opportunities, even if those decisions are bad ones. As usual, Professor Sauer over at the Sports Economist has the best analysis on the decision, in which he observes the following:

The decision is evasive on two major counts. First, apart from mentioning the NFL’s claim that the rule protects young players from physical harm, the decision wastes nary a sentence on the issue. The reason is clear – since labor law trumps antitrust, there is no need to judge the reasonableness of the restraint. Second, in announcing this in unabashed terms, the court tiptoes around the real issue here:

In the context of this collective bargaining relationship, the NFL and its players union can agree that an employee will not be hired or considered for employment for nearly any reason whatsoever [emphasis added] so long as they do not violate federal laws such as those prohibiting unfair labor practices … or discrimination.

That the restriction is discriminatory is obvious. But youth is apparently not a protected class, unlike minorities or the elderly. I find this odd.