“Sham” defense may not apply

The CBA seems to have language preventing the owners from challenging decertification

Here’s what the CBA says at Article LVII, Section 3(b):  “The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.”

In English, this means that if the players vote to decertify after the CBA expires, the NFL can’t argue that the move is a sham.

Here’s where it gets confusing.  The union reportedly will cease to exist via a “disclaimer of interest” filed by the NFLPA, not by a classic decertification.  (The “disclaimer of interest” is essentially an abandonment of the union by its leadership.)  Under the “disclaimer of interest” route, it could be that the “sham” argument survives.