the three Mackey factors. Clarett, 306 F.Supp.2d at 397. Specifically, the district court found that the rules exclude strangers to the bargaining relationship from-entering the draft, do not concern -wages, hours or working conditions of current NFL players, and were not the product of bona fide arm’s-length negotiations during the process that culminated in the current collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 395-97. We, however, have never regarded the Eighth Circuit’s test in Mackey as defining the appropriate limits of the non-statutory exemption. See Local 210, Laborers’ Int’l Union, 844 F.2d at 80 n. 2 (declining to follow Mackey in favor of balancing test articulated in Jewel Tea); see also United States Football League v. Nat'l Football League, 842 F.2d 1335, 1372 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we disagree with the Eighth
recognizing that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the alj  holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction holding that it is not our prerogative to overrule or ignore clearly written decisions of our supreme court recognizing mackey is not consistent with our decision in wood v national basketball assn recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public