Ongoing CBA discussions

I don't know that it will happen, but I think that if this goes in a protracted lockout (meaning games lost) an enterprising lawyers group may try to start a class action lawsuit on behalf of fans and/or municipalities. The owners have created an expectation of service based on the public funding of stadiums that has never really been tested or denied, but if games are lost then perhaps the fans could constitute a class in the legal sense. If that happened, it would alter the very foundation of the way that sports is viewed. With NBA also facing a possible CBA issue, it could cause unintended consequences that neither leagues nor players saw.

Or we could just forget about it and drive on...

Fan sues Browns, league over lockout | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/25/fan-sues-browns-league-over-lockout/)

SBXVII: you seem hung up on how a new CBA would impact current contracts, it wouldn't. But there are a ton of potential free agents sitting out there right now, and guys who will be impacted by a new CBA in the very near future.

Definitly I am. Which I think you have provided the best example as to why I'm boggled about this whole thing.

But even if it effects future contracts I'm slightly boggled. Because I just don't see the owners looking at FA's and saying "Gee, I really would only like to pay the player 1 mill a year but because I have to meet my % of money going to the players I'll go ahead and pay him 2 mill. I'm sure it's probably similar to that though. Owners don't meet their 50% of their revenue going to the players then they could be fined or a law suit filed. I'm sure looking at the books would keep the owners in check. Maybe an independent 3rd party needs to have their salary paid by both the NFL and the NFLPA to look at the books, look at what each team is paying it's players to make sure the % is being met and to look at each teams claim of loss revenue and how much revenue. Then if an owner is claiming he needs to move to a more lucrative market the league can go to the 3rd party and ask if he's telling the truth with out giving out specific numbers.

I don't know that it will happen, but I think that if this goes in a protracted lockout (meaning games lost) an enterprising lawyers group may try to start a class action lawsuit on behalf of fans and/or municipalities. The owners have created an expectation of service based on the public funding of stadiums that has never really been tested or denied, but if games are lost then perhaps the fans could constitute a class in the legal sense. If that happened, it would alter the very foundation of the way that sports is viewed. With NBA also facing a possible CBA issue, it could cause unintended consequences that neither leagues nor players saw.

Or we could just forget about it and drive on...

I might have read what your saying wrong but the lost games is not an issue. The owners and head honcho agreed that all games will be played. So I presume it means if they are playing into March next year they will. All 16 games for each team will be played. So the idea that fans who were sold season passes for 16 games being cheated and only getting 14 or 12 will not happen. Now it will be interesting if after the league and players agree on a new CBA and they decide that they need to drop a few games later how fans will react.

With owners trying to get blood out of a turnip in regards to fans and the season passes saying there was a contract it will be interesting to see the fans claiming the contract is a specific amount for 16 games not 12 and forcing the owners to either give money back or play a full 16 games.

Fan sues Browns, league over lockout | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/25/fan-sues-browns-league-over-lockout/)

LOL. Taa Daaaaa.

I doubt he will win his case. He's claiming the NFL and NFLPA is keeping him from sitting in his seat and watching football. In reality they are not all they would be doing is changing the dates of a few games at the beginning of the season very much like a rain date or postponed game. If anyone has this arguement it should be the Vikings after their roof fell in or the Saints fans after Katrina and the team played elsewhere for the first few games.

I like this idea....
“The owners and players can’t decide what to do with an extra billion dollars between them,” Lanci said. “I have the perfect solution. That one billion should go to all cities that gave them money to build football stadiums they couldn’t afford to build. This would give these cities badly needed tax relief.”

but the problem is there are 3 types of stadiums:
1- Owners who own their stadium paid for or is still paying through loans.
2- City owned stadiums paid through public taxes.
3- A combination of the two.

So if the league throws the 1 bill at the city owned stadiums to lower the taxes then the teams who are currently collecting money under the revenue sharing to help pay their part of the loans and can't with out the sharing will get screwed.

The sharing covers two items... teams that don't make as much as the lucrative teams in order to compete for FA's, and money used to help owners who can't pay their loans or rent.

Definitly I am. Which I think you have provided the best example as to why I'm boggled about this whole thing.

But even if it effects future contracts I'm slightly boggled. Because I just don't see the owners looking at FA's and saying "Gee, I really would only like to pay the player 1 mill a year but because I have to meet my % of money going to the players I'll go ahead and pay him 2 mill. I'm sure it's probably similar to that though. Owners don't meet their 50% of their revenue going to the players then they could be fined or a law suit filed. I'm sure looking at the books would keep the owners in check. Maybe an independent 3rd party needs to have their salary paid by both the NFL and the NFLPA to look at the books, look at what each team is paying it's players to make sure the % is being met and to look at each teams claim of loss revenue and how much revenue. Then if an owner is claiming he needs to move to a more lucrative market the league can go to the 3rd party and ask if he's telling the truth with out giving out specific numbers.

You're thinking way too hard about this.

You have to think about the % within the parameters of a salary floor and cap.

You're thinking way too hard about this.

You have to think about the % within the parameters of a salary floor and cap.

Gotcha. But why should the players be concerned about a floor cap when the owners and players individually negotiate salary. Having a floor cap simply means the owners have to atleast spend that amount before they can use the rest for whatever they want. In other words no owner can have is % of monies to players below 50% or the rumored 59%. So my next question is what teams are sitting on the bubble of the 50% because if I'm not mistaken most teams are either close to the roof cap or just below it. which tells me there really is not an issue with teams not paying players. and if there was then I would presume the player can either take the offer extended to him by the team or go to another team or sit out because he doesn't think he's getting enough for his skills. Kinda like if your selling your house. You can be given 10 different offers but it it's not what you want you can take your house off the market.

Sorry to bug you about it or seem like I'm an idiot, most unions when striking are arguing for the hourly wage earner. Trying to either get him better wages or get him a % raise each year. Sometimes it's about health coverage. Sometimes it's about safety. Rarely is it ever about the salary wage earner who negotiates his salary/contract prior to being hired. What I mean by Salary wage earner is the employee who agrees to a yearly amount. Instead of an hourly wage earner being told he will make $25 an hour the salary negotiates say a $80,000 a year contract. His contract does not go up nor down because it was negotiated prior to his hiring. Usually the hourly wage eaner does not get to negotiate their wage which is why unions are formed and step in to negotiate for them.

and again I know I'm thinking too much but how does a floor cap and a ceiling cap effect negotiations to a salary wage earner? Unless the negotiations are about yearly cost of living increases which I didn't think the NFL had.

I'm only asking because I'm actually siding with the owners right now sort of, and there is a few here that probably would think I'm a moron for doing so. Yet everthing I read about what all this means is so watered down and not explained very well.

For me I see players concerned over a % of the money that they probably won't see anyway because they sit and negotiate their salaries with the owners. If they dont' like the offer they can go to another team who might pay them better. I guess I'm having problems seeing how 50% of the revenue is going to effect not only current players under contract by their teams but FA's since each individual player negotiates their own contract. If it's about the players saying every team has to spend atleast 75 mill a year on players salaries and the owner saying ok but we don't want this to get out of hand so we are going to say no team can spend over 130 mill a year fine. It can be worded like that in the contract and even throw in the fact that it can increase by 4% each year. But thats not what this is about or atleast it doesn't seem like it.

On the swing side the owners are claiming a loss in revenue. How much? If the whole NFL league makes 9 bill and there is a loss then in all actuality there is no 9 bill. It's probably 8 bill or 8.5 or something. Was it at 10 bill in a previous year and last year it fell to 9 bill? If thats the case then the players and owners would know. So is the 9 bill what is in question because it seems like the issue is more about not wanting to give up 1 bill to the owners for revenue sharing leaving 8 bill to split two ways. which goes back to my original question how does the 4 bill effect the players either current or FA's looking for new contracts? We know it won't effect Rookies because there will be a Rookie wage scale.

Here is a comment by Drew Brees:
"Not once have the players asked for more money during this negotiation. That is a fact," New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees said in a statement released on Twitter.

"Past players sacrificed a great deal to give us what we have now in the NFL, and we will not lay down for a second to give that up.


I totally agree with him. But my issue is how does giving up another 1 bill to the owners effect him? If his contract is up and he decides to come to the Redskins I'm sure he will get a nice negotiated contract. I guess I just don't see how the 4 bill is going to effect his negotiations?

According to the same site:
NFL lockout looms as union talks break down | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/11/nfl-lockout-looms-as-union-talks-break-down/)

Under the current agreement, owners received a guaranteed $1 billion of annual revenue, which totaled around $9 billion. The remaining money was split, with the players getting around 60 percent and the owners 40 percent.

The league and owners want to increase their automatic cut by another $1 billion, arguing that operational costs had risen since the last deal was struck five years ago.

But the players wanted to maintain the status quo, claiming the owners had failed to provide them with enough financial evidence to prove they needed a bigger slice of the profits.


I can understand the owners wanting more because the market is bad, less fans going to games, teams in bad areas not being able to get fans to come to the games and the owners needing to suppliment the money from somewhere. I'm just having a hard time understanding where the 4 bill goes for the players and what it is used for? especially if it doesn't effect player contracts or if it does I'm not seeing it. If the players are being asked to give up another 1 bill to the owners how is it going to effect each individual player? which I don't think has been explained very well.

No wonder I'm not an accountant... I must be an idiot cause when I read this...
“They were trying to make salary a fixed cost and, in the past, it had been a percentage of revenues,” said Pete Kendall, a former NFL player who is advising the NFL Players Association and was present at the majority of bargaining sessions held over the past two years. “In the past, if revenues went up, the salaries went up.”[/QUOTE]

I then wonder who's salaries went up? The current players on the field negotiate their contracts for what they will make each year. Their salaries only go up and down based off of their agreement of what the player is to make each year. It's not like a player would have made $400,000 and because the owners took in an extra 4 mill for the year all the players get a % increase.

So.... I'm assuming the only people who would be concerned about revenue would be retired players? because their retirement is based off of what the yearly take is? yes or no?

Again, I maybe the idiot in wondering how the revenue actually effects each individual player since their contracts are already set with the amount they will receive for each year over the life of the contract.


Year to year increase in pay is based on projected increase in revenue and since revenue has been increasing it seems to me it works out pretty well for everyone. If you are owner just don't give out massive contracts and if you do, it's your bloody problem.