league baseball’s reserve system are mandatory bargaining subjects in the context of professional baseball. p. v. N.Y. Shipping Ass’n, 426 F.2d 884, 887-88 (2d Cir.1970) (“[T]he preservation of jobs is within the area of proper union concerní, and u]nion activity having as its object the preservation of jobs for union members is not violative of the anti-trust laws.” (internal citations omitted)). Because the size of NFL teams is capped, the eligibility rules diminish a veteran player’s risk of being replaced by either a drafted rookie or a player who enters the draft and, though not drafted, is then hired as a rookie free agent. See Michael S. Jacobs & Ralph K. Winter, Jr., Antitrust Principles and Collective Bargaining by Athletes: Of Superstars in Peonage, 81 Yale L,J. 1, 16 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, as was true in Silverman, we
holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union recognizing that entry of new players through draft has an enormous effect on those already in the unit and the collective agreement which governs them holding that the ongoing collective bargaining relationship ends and the nonstatutory labor exemption no longer applies when the players vote to repudiate the union holding that the present controversy concerns the plaintiffs rights under state and federal statutes which exist independently of the collective bargaining agreement and do not require interpretation of that agreement holding that oral agreement made in connection with reinstatement should be treated as part of collective bargaining agreement