Dear Members,
Please be advised that the NLLPA and the National Lacrosse League (League) recently arbitrated a dispute regarding the League’s rejection of a No-Movement Clause that a player negotiated in his Standard Player Agreement (SPA). The NLLPA is proud to announce that the arbitrator ruled in favor of the NLLPA.
As a result, moving forward, a “No-Movement Clause” may now be included in your SPA, assuming you are able to negotiate one with your team.
This arbitration decision has significant importance which benefits players and increases contractual rights. As you may be aware, a “No-Movement Clause” prohibits a team from trading a player, or exposing a player to an expansion draft, without the player’s consent. Including a No-Movement Clause in a SPA should help players feel more confident in their club’s commitment to them. This is additional protection, particularly for players with off-floor employment agreements (which are not typically transferable via trade).
Please see a summary of the Arbitration Decision below:
The dispute arose over the League’s rejection of a SPA between a player and the Philadelphia Wings. As mentioned, the key point of contention was a “No-Movement Clause” in the SPA, which the League argued was not permissible under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The Players Association argued that the League’s rejection of the No-Movement clause after it was agreed upon by the player and the Wings violated both the SPA and CBA, and constituted an abuse of discretion by the League. The NLLPA also contended that the clause was not prohibited by the governing documents, and thus the clause was permissible.
On the other hand, the League claimed that the clause contradicted the CBA’s provisions regarding player trades, and thus it was justified in rejecting the clause.
The arbitrator analyzed relevant contract provisions, including those in the League Constitution, Collective Bargaining Agreement, and Standard Player Agreement. The arbitrator noted that while the SPA allows teams to trade players, it does not explicitly prohibit teams from agreeing in a SPA not to trade players.
The arbitrator found that the League’s rejection of the clause lacked basis in the CBA or other controlling documents. The arbitrator emphasized that the League’s discretion to reject contracts must be based on specific provisions of the CBA or League Bylaws, and that the League’s rejection in this case did not meet that standard.
As a result, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the player, and directed the League and its member clubs to honor the SPA, including the No-Movement Clause.
Please reach out if you would like a copy of the full written decision.
Thank you,
