## Facts

- A federal district court retained jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement and related collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing NFL player–club contracting and dispute resolution through a special master.
- The NFL Management Council initiated a special master proceeding alleging the San Francisco 49ers and certain player agents entered undisclosed compensation arrangements violating the CBA/settlement framework.
- The Management Council sought discovery from player agents Leigh Steinberg, Jeffrey Moorad, and Gary Wichard; the agents objected, arguing they were not signatories to the CBA or settlement and could not be compelled or penalized under them.
- The agreements stated they bound the parties and their “representatives and agents,” and required agents to certify that negotiated player contracts complied with governing terms.
- Under the union’s agent-certification rules, only certified agents could negotiate with clubs, and certified agents agreed to comply with union regulations requiring familiarity with the CBA and related documents.
- The special master dismissed the agents from the proceeding, treating the “agents” language as boilerplate and reasoning that union regulation of agents precluded special-master penalties against them.
- The Management Council and the union filed objections to the dismissal; the agents objected to any ruling that could subject them to penalties.

## Issues

1. Whether NFL player agents, though non-signatories, were bound by the CBA and settlement agreement based on the agreements’ terms and the agents’ participation in the regulatory/contracting regime.
2. Whether bound agents could be subjected to penalty provisions (including penalties tied to false certification) in special master proceedings notwithstanding the union’s separate authority to regulate and certify agents.

## Decision

- The court reversed the special master’s dismissal of the agents and rejected the view that references to “agents” were merely boilerplate.
- The court held the agents were bound by the CBA and settlement agreement because the documents contemplated agent obligations and the agents participated in, and benefited from, the contractual system tied to certification.
- The court affirmed that, if agents are bound, they may be subjected to the agreements’ penalty provisions for false certification in proceedings before the special master.
- The matter returned to the special master with the agents subject to discovery and potential sanctions under the enforcement framework.

## Legal Principles

- Non-signatories may be bound to a labor/settlement enforcement regime when the governing documents expressly extend obligations to them and their conduct shows knowing participation in the system the agreements create.
- Contractual certification requirements directed at intermediaries can support binding those intermediaries to the agreement, particularly where certification is a prerequisite to performing the intermediary role.
- Union authority to certify and regulate agents does not, by itself, bar concurrent enforcement of settlement/CBA duties through a court-supervised special-master process.
- Where an agreement provides penalties for false certification, those penalties may be imposed on bound agents through the agreement’s designated enforcement mechanism.

## Conclusion

The court held that NFL player agents were bound by the CBA/settlement framework and could be pursued in special-master proceedings, including exposure to penalties for false certification, despite the union’s separate agent-regulation role.


White v. Nat'l Football League, 92 F. Supp. 2d 918 (D. Minn. 2000)