Ongoing CBA discussions

This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. Much like the JC threads that raged on and on, both sides find their arguments to be fully justified while the other side's argument is just not as compelling. Much like the JC arguments these get very personal for something that none of us will have much say over.

With that said,
In the courts the players are employees, not rock stars, not skin partially owned subsidiaries, and not partners. If they want to be treated like any of those things it will be in terms of negotiations and a CBA. They have chosen to take it to the courts and their they are employees under contract law and their claims are viewed in that light. I think they could win every legal battle and yet still lose when the final cba is written. Why, because no court is going to order an industry to pay over half their revenue to its employees, no court will mandate long term healthcare or benefits, and the players may find that open bidding and right to work arguments may benefit the mannings and bradys of the leagues, but don't think that that 53rd man on the roster will get vet min after three years of service, he will be replaced by an undrafted guy that will happily take 100grand for a year to prove his value.

I think the owners have weighed the impact of adverse lawsuits and even the threat of treble damages have not been enough to sway their mindset.

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

They are not under contract law because there is no contract. They under anti-trust law and it's everyman for himself against the NFL. Throughout history the players have won the court battles so what in the hell makes you think they won't this time around? The NFL will play ball because the players pay their bills.

Saden,

I said that I think the players could win every lawsuit they file, but still lose when the next CBA is written. The players are on very firm legal ground, in terms of antitrust law. The courts could rule the draft illegal. They could rule restricted free agency illegal. They could find the franchise tag illegal. They could find the salary cap/salary floor illegal.

After all those rulings for the players, the owners still could end up writing individual contracts that total less than the percentage of revenue that they are committed too via the CBA

Saden,

I said that I think the players could win every lawsuit they file, but still lose when the next CBA is written. The players are on very firm legal ground, in terms of antitrust law. The courts could rule the draft illegal. They could rule restricted free agency illegal. They could find the franchise tag illegal. They could find the salary cap/salary floor illegal.

After all those rulings for the players, the owners still could end up writing individual contracts that total less than the percentage of revenue that they are committed too via the CBA

What you don't realize is owners compete with each other for talent which implies costs control is lost!!!!!!! Not to mention the fact that unionization and CBA greatly benefits owners in small markets. A free-for-all system would be disastrous for most owners as is evident by their past desire to maintain a leash on free agency and rookie salaries.

It only takes a few owners to start dishing out big contracts and buy themselves championship before the rest of the owners revolt or take matters into their own hands by starting to shelling out big money too.


Bottom line, cost control is maintained in a fixed price system not in a free price system. Collectively players will never lose in a free-for-all free price system.

What you don't realize is owners compete with each other for talent which implies costs control is lost!!!!!!! Not to mention the fact that unionization and CBA greatly benefits owners in small markets. A free-for-all system would be disastrous for most owners as is evident by their past desire to maintain a leash on free agency and rookie salaries.

It only takes a few owners to start dishing out big contracts and buy themselves championship before the rest of the owners revolt or take matters into their own hands by starting to shelling out big money too.


Bottom line, cost control is maintained in a fixed price system not in a free price system. Collectively players will never lose in a free-for-all free price system.

I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.

I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.

Agreed. I also think that owners can collude to engage in price-fixing better than some people seem to think.

I get it, the NFL cares more about retired players than the NFLPA...riiight.It appears they do. At least the NFL commish has responded, in writing, to the head of the NFLAA.....D. Smith won't even meet with him.

George Martin, director of NFL Alumni Association: DeMaurice Smith treats alums as 'afterthought' (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2011/03/15/2011-03-15_george_martin_director_of_nfl_alumni_associatio n_demaurice_smith_treats_alums_as.html)

Another brilliant PR strategy by D. Smith.

I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.


In that scenario revenue sharing will be out the window and it will be like baseball. I can't imagine NFL owners except maybe big market teams wanting to model the league after the MLB. I remember Danny Boy being upset that the Bengals weren't spending his share of the pool money to compete not too long ago...I can't imagine him wanting to share any money with owners like that.

It appears they do. At least the NFL commish has responded, in writing, to the head of the NFLAA.....D. Smith won't even meet with him.

George Martin, director of NFL Alumni Association: DeMaurice Smith treats alums as 'afterthought' (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2011/03/15/2011-03-15_george_martin_director_of_nfl_alumni_associatio n_demaurice_smith_treats_alums_as.html)

Another brilliant PR strategy by D. Smith.

That isn't any indication that the NFL cares more only that there is a relationship problem and mistrust between the two organizations. What is a fact, however, is that the NFLPA does not represent retired players and that the NFL doesn't care about players once they are out of the league. Honestly, no one gives a shit about them. They want benefits no one wants to provide for them but if someone was willing to it wouldn't be the owners that's for sure.

I want to admit a error I stated previously debated Slinging Sammy. He apparently is correct with the 59.5 of total revenue (after 1 billion cut from top) the players were to receive over the 6 year period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/sports/football/09nfl.html





This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs.

The reason it's hard to win hearts is because of the perspective people choose to look at the situation. Most people look at this situation as your standard Employer/Employee situation, and it's far from being anything in that realm. The other thing is, people are blaming the players for the work stoppage. It's like they ignore the fact the OWNERS are doing the lock out and not the players. It's amazing how many people out there that don't' understand anything that's going on and just chooses a side.



The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

Do what? Seems the majority of the owners were satisfied with it seeing a 30-2 vote in favor.

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension - NFL - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258)
"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."

"Some teams are contributing a little more than others," Redskins owner Dan Synder said. "This is really a win-win."

31 of 32 teams currently "may" require season ticket holders to pay for their tix in a lockout shortened season.

NFL LOCKOUT: 31 Of 32 NFL Teams Requiring Payments For 2011 Season Tickets (http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-season-tickets-locked-out-2011-3)