Owners Vote to Opt Out of Labor Agreement

Changes in 2010 (the uncapped year) if no new agreement is reached (per P. King at The owners opted out of the labor deal at the best time possible - Peter King - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/20/react/index.html?eref=T1))

FREE AGENCY: Currently, players who are unsigned and have finished at least four NFL seasons are free. In the 2010 market, players will be free if they are unsigned after at least their sixth NFL season. In other words, 2009 would have to be a player's sixth season, and he would have to enter 2010 unsigned. Let's use Cleveland wide receiver Braylon Edwards as an example. In his original rookie contract, signed in 2005, the final year is 2009, which would be his fifth NFL season. Ordinarily, he'd be a free-agent in 2010 -- if the team didn't sign him before then or place a franchise tag on him. But under the 2010 rules, he won't be a free-agent.

MORE RESTRICTIONS VIA FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION TAGS: Each team now can use one franchise-player tag and one transition-player tag -- which pay the tagged player, respectively, the average of the top five and top 10 salaries at his position. In 2010, the revised deal would allow each team the use of a second transition tag. If a team chose to use all its tags, it could stop its best three players from hitting the unrestricted free-agent market.

RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TOP EIGHT TEAMS IN FOOTBALL: If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency.

All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back.

This is an area of sports that I'm not that familiar with...Why does the players union expect to get an even larger chunk of the revenue (according to the comments in the article) when the owners were the ones who terminated the contracts? Also, it would seem that if something was unanimously agreed upon to be terminated, it was never really that reasonable in the first place. Why didn't they write into the deal an opportunity to rework it (with mutual consent of both sides) without terminating it or letting it expire? That way you can avoid leaving the shelter of the contract at any given time.


I expect that once it became clear that there were enough votes to terminate the deal (9 owners I believe?) everyone voted unanimously in order to present a unified front to the players for negotiating purposes.

If the owners want to unring this bell, they will have to be willing to endure a strike or initiate a lockout. The Union seems convinced that they are unstoppable. Once some of these guys miss a few paychecks, though, Upshaw will find himself in a different position. He is not Donald Fehr. The NFLPA has been put in its place before and it may be time to do it again.

I'm not up on all this stuff but with the money that these players make now days I wounder how strong they can hold together a strike. You have the lower paid players which need their checks and higher paid players that will take the biggest income hit from a strike. So then I feel you only have the guys somewhere in the middle which might be willing to hold out longer.

Get the replacement players ready.

In the end the owners always have the advantage. They're already rich. Eventually the players will have to cave in to the owners demands.

In the end the owners always have the advantage. They're already rich. Eventually the players will have to cave in to the owners demands.

That may not be such a bad thing. I may not understand all of this stuff completely, but I like how things were in the 80's. Good teams were able to keep their good players and not lose them to free agency. I realize it's not fair to the smaller market teams, but honestly, if the Redskins happen to have a dynasty team on the horizon and things are made easier for them to keep these players paid and happy, then I'm all for a change.

The real losers in this deal is the fans. Can you imagine spending a fall with no Redskins?
I lost interest in baseball years ago due to all the labor problems. True, the owners and players are all making some serious $$. Without us the fans they don't have an audience to market to.

Hopefully they can negotiate a new deal.

They really need to go to a incentive based pay system. Pay the players a decent guaranteed base salary, but then add a strong incentive based pay system. So guy that has a banner year will get big bucks. A player that sucks gets his base pay only. This makes a lot of sense for the unproven rookies.
I am tired of seeing a contract like #1 pick Jake Long's rookie contract. How is that Jake Long immediately becomes the highest paid offensive lineman in the NFL and he has never take a snap in the NFL? This guy can end up being another Robert Gallery. Good but not great.

They really need to go to a incentive based pay system. Pay the players a decent guaranteed base salary, but then add a strong incentive based pay system. So guy that has a banner year will get big bucks. A player that sucks gets his base pay only. This makes a lot of sense for the unproven rookies.
I am tired of seeing a contract like #1 pick Jake Long's rookie contract. How is that Jake Long immediately becomes the highest paid offensive lineman in the NFL and he has never take a snap in the NFL? This guy can end up being another Robert Gallery. Good but not great.

I agree with you all the way. Did you guys see the absurd amount of money that Matt Ryan got. To make that much money and to not be proven. Its sick.

I think it makes the solid but modestly paid veterans sick to their stomachs. Where is the loyalty? The system makes the owners have to pay players based on potential and not on proven talent.