Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Add 2 games to the schedule = + $500M in revenue a year

Sell rights to Thursday games = +$750M in revenue per year

Discontinue the NFL Network = +$250M ?

Implement a rookie salary cap that lowers the first round = +50M ?

Lots of extra money in play to get a deal done where both make out like bandits.

I see no reason the owners shouldn't be allowed to continue to try and grow and develop the NFL network if they think it is in the best interests of the long-term development of the NFL.This bothers me a lot that it gets pointed to as something the owners could do.

They all do a lot of things to raise present day revenue (they could all charge admission to training camp, a la Danny Snyder) but the question is SHOULD THEY, if they have a reasonable business reason for not exploiting a particular revenue stream...

If the owners want to continue to lose money on that kind of stuff, that's their choice. I'm not sure that the losses should come out of the players' share of the revenues, however.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I were advising the owners, I would have them bump the minimum salary from $200,000 to $400,000.

If I were the owners, I'd ask you to pay the $200K per-player difference out of your own pocket if you think it's such a good idea. It adds up pretty fast, and the owners aren't necessarily keen on paying a lot of extra money.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For those of you advocating for 'no stay' during the pendency of the appeal what set of operational rules for the NFL would you propose?

No salary capNo salary minimumAll free agents are exactly that (free) Remove the franchise tagContinue to share TV revenue16 game schedule this year, but announce that an 18 game schedule starts in 2012and continue to work towards a CBA

That, or just work under the 2010 rules which the players have no issue with and so won't challenge.

The union, as a whole might not have an issue, but there is no union, and certainly individual players would have an issue (See: DeAngelo Williams/Vincent Jackson) and it only takes one to file an anti-trust lawsuit.

Yes, the 2010 rules are already being challenged. The suit's been filed. Vincent Jackson is a named plaintiff.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Add 2 games to the schedule = + $500M in revenue a year

Sell rights to Thursday games = +$750M in revenue per year

Discontinue the NFL Network = +$250M ?

Implement a rookie salary cap that lowers the first round = +50M ?

Lots of extra money in play to get a deal done where both make out like bandits.

I see no reason the owners shouldn't be allowed to continue to try and grow and develop the NFL network if they think it is in the best interests of the long-term development of the NFL.This bothers me a lot that it gets pointed to as something the owners could do.

They all do a lot of things to raise present day revenue (they could all charge admission to training camp, a la Danny Snyder) but the question is SHOULD THEY, if they have a reasonable business reason for not exploiting a particular revenue stream...

If the owners want to continue to lose money on that kind of stuff, that's their choice. I'm not sure that the losses should come out of the players' share of the revenues, however.

If the players share is a strict percentage, then every expense - in part - comes out of the players' share. If the players' share was a fixed, but escalating amount, this would not be the case.

Because it is set up as the former, it 'opens the door' for the players to question every expense the owners make and every revenue stream the owners' choose NOT to pursue. [personal opinion following] I don't believe that the players should have the right or ability to question such expenses and or decisions not to exploit all revenue streams SO LONG AS those decisions that are made are reasonable business expenses and/or are reasonably determined by the owners to grow the business of the NFL and not intended to defraud the players. The owners and the players are going to have divergent views. The players are ALWAYS going to want to maximize current revenues whereas the owners will take a much longer view. It should be the owners' rights, as owners, to make business decisions reasonably calculated to grow the business over time EVEN IF it has the result of lowering potential current revenue of which the players share is a part.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is the point many of us are trying to make. I don't believe he can be traded now without "collusion" occurring. It is like all of us NFL/fantasy guys just want the normal stuff to get going again. But only signing FA could occur (that with no restrictions). I am certain any trade is a collusive act unless the player involved agrees ahead of time, and maybe Kolb would.

I suspect that Kolb's current contract says he can be traded. I'm not sure that's an issue.

 

[Hoosier16]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

I don't think the non-statutory labor exemption is available to the league that this point.But while the draft and salary cap are clear violations of antitrust laws, the other restrictions on free agency are defensible. Moreover, the 2011 draft is covered by the previous CBA, and there was no salary cap in 2010, so there's no problem on that front going forward. Stuff like roster limits should pass antitrust scrutiny. Stuff like the franchise tag may or may not pass muster, but by the time those things are litigated, there should be a new CBA in place anyway (which I think is the answer to your final question). Using most of the 2010 rules should work okay . . .

Do you think restricting 5 year players would be considered reasonable? It doesn't seem like it would, since they went years allowing 5 year players to be unrestricted.

 

[David Dodds]

Add 2 games to the schedule = + $500M in revenue a year

Sell rights to Thursday games = +$750M in revenue per year

Discontinue the NFL Network = +$250M ?

Implement a rookie salary cap that lowers the first round = +50M ?

Lots of extra money in play to get a deal done where both make out like bandits.

I see no reason the owners shouldn't be allowed to continue to try and grow and develop the NFL network if they think it is in the best interests of the long-term development of the NFL.This bothers me a lot that it gets pointed to as something the owners could do.

They all do a lot of things to raise present day revenue (they could all charge admission to training camp, a la Danny Snyder) but the question is SHOULD THEY, if they have a reasonable business reason for not exploiting a particular revenue stream...

If the owners want to continue to lose money on that kind of stuff, that's their choice. I'm not sure that the losses should come out of the players' share of the revenues, however.

If the players share is a strict percentage, then every expense - in part - comes out of the players' share. If the players' share was a fixed, but escalating amount, this would not be the case.

Because it is set up as the former, it 'opens the door' for the players to question every expense the owners make and every revenue stream the owners' choose NOT to pursue. [personal opinion following] I don't believe that the players should have the right or ability to question such expenses and or decisions not to exploit all revenue streams SO LONG AS those decisions that are made are reasonable business expenses and/or are reasonably determined by the owners to grow the business of the NFL and not intended to defraud the players. The owners and the players are going to have divergent views. The players are ALWAYS going to want to maximize current revenues whereas the owners will take a much longer view. It should be the owners' rights, as owners, to make business decisions reasonably calculated to grow the business over time EVEN IF it has the result of lowering potential current revenue of which the players share is a part.

The owners are claiming they need more than the $1B off the top. In fact they want $2B off the top. The losses due to NFL Europe and NFL Network are some of the reasons they "need" this money. So in essence they are asking to have the players pay those expenses before revenue sharing takes place.Most of this is simply a matter of trust though. The players don't believe the owners have legitimate expenses. That's why they have wanted to see the books.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Using the nuclear option (decertification) is like a wife threatening divorce because her hubby doesn't lower the toilet seat. It threatens the very existance of the NFL and should not be used over a 5 or 6% differance in opinion on salaries, or even 10% (a figure in dispute). The threat level of such a move is unconcionable, and we should all be appalled at the maneuver no matter which side of the dispute you're on.

The players will end up with a better CBA by using that option than by not using it. There's no reason they shouldn't use it.If your boss says he's going to reduce your pay, would it be totally out of line if, in response, you threatened to leave and go somewhere else?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

trading a player is certainly illegal in anti trust.

Im sure Carson Palmer and Kevin Kolb would agree to be traded, but would the players that they are traded for?

I hope the judge doesnt issue the stay just to move this process along.

Not if the player contractually agrees to it. This is taken from the standard player's contract:

17. ASSIGNMENT. Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, Club may assign this contract and Player’s services under this contract to any successor to Club’s franchise or to any other Club in the League. Player will report to the assignee Club promptly upon being informed of the assignment of his contract and will faithfully perform his services under this contract. The assignee club will pay Player’s necessary traveling expenses in reporting to it and will faithfully perform this contract with Player.

Orange Crush keeps beating me to the punch. East coast head start.

 

[roarlions]

If the players share is a strict percentage, then every expense - in part - comes out of the players' share. If the players' share was a fixed, but escalating amount, this would not be the case.Because it is set up as the former, it 'opens the door' for the players to question every expense the owners make and every revenue stream the owners' choose NOT to pursue. [personal opinion following] I don't believe that the players should have the right or ability to question such expenses and or decisions not to exploit all revenue streams SO LONG AS those decisions that are made are reasonable business expenses and/or are reasonably determined by the owners to grow the business of the NFL and not intended to defraud the players. The owners and the players are going to have divergent views. The players are ALWAYS going to want to maximize current revenues whereas the owners will take a much longer view. It should be the owners' rights, as owners, to make business decisions reasonably calculated to grow the business over time EVEN IF it has the result of lowering potential current revenue of which the players share is a part.

I'm curious as to how the NFL Network grows the NFL? Doesn't seem likely to increase viewership of games, which is the league's primary product. Maybe it adds advertising revenue since companies advertise there even when games aren't shown, but does that extra revenue exceed the associated costs? Not sure I really see the benefit to the growth of the league from the NFLN.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So ok looks like I was wrong on the trading thing, but then why cant they do player trades during this draft?

Off the top of my head, I think it's because we're past the 2010 trade deadline, and the commencement of the 2011 league year hasn't occurred yet. So we're still past the trade deadline.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

I don't think the non-statutory labor exemption is available to the league that this point.But while the draft and salary cap are clear violations of antitrust laws, the other restrictions on free agency are defensible. Moreover, the 2011 draft is covered by the previous CBA, and there was no salary cap in 2010, so there's no problem on that front going forward. Stuff like roster limits should pass antitrust scrutiny. Stuff like the franchise tag may or may not pass muster, but by the time those things are litigated, there should be a new CBA in place anyway (which I think is the answer to your final question). Using most of the 2010 rules should work okay . . .

Do you think restricting 5 year players would be considered reasonable? It doesn't seem like it would, since they went years allowing 5 year players to be unrestricted.

No, I'd get rid of restricted free agency as well. But I think restricted free agency (at least on four-year players) is defensible, even if ultimately illegal. (That is to say, while it may be illegal, it's not obviously illegal.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hey Hipple, did I do okay?

 

[Hoosier16]

If Nelson's ruling is upheld — by the judge herself or the appellate court — the NFL must resume business in some fashion.

It could invoke 2010 rules requiring six seasons of service before players can become unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much — or as little — as they wanted.

Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested that might be the plan.

"What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year," he said. "It's 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that's probably the rules that make the most sense."

link

Interesting. That seems like the most risky path to take for the owners. It seems like they are counting on the courts to view this as just an impasse in negotiations. Nelson has pretty much already shot that idea down in her ruling. It seems like they will surely lose if they go this route.Is there any attorney out there who thinks the owners won't be in violation of antitrust laws? Or maybe a better question is can any attorney explain what the thinking of the NFL's attorney might be?

I don't think the non-statutory labor exemption is available to the league that this point.But while the draft and salary cap are clear violations of antitrust laws, the other restrictions on free agency are defensible. Moreover, the 2011 draft is covered by the previous CBA, and there was no salary cap in 2010, so there's no problem on that front going forward. Stuff like roster limits should pass antitrust scrutiny. Stuff like the franchise tag may or may not pass muster, but by the time those things are litigated, there should be a new CBA in place anyway (which I think is the answer to your final question). Using most of the 2010 rules should work okay . . .

Do you think restricting 5 year players would be considered reasonable? It doesn't seem like it would, since they went years allowing 5 year players to be unrestricted.

No, I'd get rid of restricted free agency as well. But I think restricted free agency (at least on four-year players) is defensible, even if ultimately illegal. (That is to say, while it may be illegal, it's not obviously illegal.)

I agree. If I were keeping restricted, I'd at least raise the salary to an amount equal or above the average (or median) salary of the pick tendered.

 

[roadkill1292]

Hey Hipple, did I do okay?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't believe that the players should have the right or ability to question such expenses and or decisions not to exploit all revenue streams SO LONG AS those decisions that are made are reasonable business expenses and/or are reasonably determined by the owners to grow the business of the NFL and not intended to defraud the players. The owners and the players are going to have divergent views. The players are ALWAYS going to want to maximize current revenues whereas the owners will take a much longer view. It should be the owners' rights, as owners, to make business decisions reasonably calculated to grow the business over time EVEN IF it has the result of lowering potential current revenue of which the players share is a part.

Yes, it should be easy to see both sides of this issue.From the owners' standpoint, if increased revenues will benefit the players as well as the owners, the expenses necessary to increase revenues should be shared by the players as well.From the players' standpoint, the players' shouldn't be forced to subsidize extravagant spending on wasteful projects that are driven more by Jerrah's ego than by good business sense.A solution will have to address both concerns, which is a bit tricky.

 

[Orange Crush]

I don't think the non-statutory labor exemption is available to the league that this point.

But while the draft and salary cap are clear violations of antitrust laws, the other restrictions on free agency are defensible. Moreover, the 2011 draft is covered by the previous CBA, and there was no salary cap in 2010, so there's no problem on that front going forward. Stuff like roster limits should pass antitrust scrutiny. Stuff like the franchise tag may or may not pass muster, but by the time those things are litigated, there should be a new CBA in place anyway (which I think is the answer to your final question). Using most of the 2010 rules should work okay . . .

Do you think restricting 5 year players would be considered reasonable? It doesn't seem like it would, since they went years allowing 5 year players to be unrestricted.

No, I'd get rid of restricted free agency as well. But I think restricted free agency (at least on four-year players) is defensible, even if ultimately illegal. (That is to say, while it may be illegal, it's not obviously illegal.)

I disagree. I think it's pretty blatantly and obviously illegal, unless each individual player contract includes an Option year for the club (which the standard player contract lacks).

 

[Orange Crush]

I don't believe that the players should have the right or ability to question such expenses and or decisions not to exploit all revenue streams SO LONG AS those decisions that are made are reasonable business expenses and/or are reasonably determined by the owners to grow the business of the NFL and not intended to defraud the players. The owners and the players are going to have divergent views. The players are ALWAYS going to want to maximize current revenues whereas the owners will take a much longer view. It should be the owners' rights, as owners, to make business decisions reasonably calculated to grow the business over time EVEN IF it has the result of lowering potential current revenue of which the players share is a part.

Yes, it should be easy to see both sides of this issue.From the owners' standpoint, if increased revenues will benefit the players as well as the owners, the expenses necessary to increase revenues should be shared by the players as well.From the players' standpoint, the players' shouldn't be forced to subsidize extravagant spending on wasteful projects that are driven more by Jerrah's ego than by good business sense.A solution will have to address both concerns, which is a bit tricky.

Yes, and this makes the last CBA appear more and more like a well thought-out and fair document. The owners were given certain types of spending that they could choose to engage in to grow the league, and the players agreed to exclude those costs from the revenue calculation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I disagree. I think it's pretty blatantly and obviously illegal, unless each individual player contract includes an Option year for the club (which the standard player contract lacks).

I think it's ultimately illegal.But the argument for its legality is that (a) it reduces player turnover, thus enhancing fan loyalty; (b) it promotes parity (I don't know how, but the league always argues that everything promotes parity, so I'm sure it will come up with an argument for that here as well); and (c) since it is temporary, and since restricted free agents can still receive offers from other clubs, it is not all that restrictive.

Come to think of it . . . I'm not sure how restricted free agency would work without a draft. What are the Seahawks supposed to give up when they make Vincent Jackson an offer that the Chargers don't match?

 

[Orange Crush]

I disagree. I think it's pretty blatantly and obviously illegal, unless each individual player contract includes an Option year for the club (which the standard player contract lacks).

I think it's ultimately illegal.But the argument for its legality is that it (a) reduces player turnover, thus enhancing fan loyalty; (b) promotes parity (I don't know how, but the league always argues that everything promotes parity, so I'm sure it will come up with an argument for it here as well); and © since it is temporary, and since restricted free agents can still receive offers from other clubs, it is not all that restrictive.

Come to think of it . . . I'm not sure how restricted free agency would work without a draft. What are the Seahawks supposed to give up when they make Vincent Jackson an offer that the Chargers don't match?

(a) and (b) have no bearing on a rule of reason analysis. And © is pretty much arguing, "Oh, c'mon, it's only a little illegal!"

 

[massraider]

I see no progress being made this route.

Well, the old route had what, two years, or however long it was since the owners opted out of the CBA?The judge hasn't even ruled on the stay, I think it's a bit early to talk about it not working as a negotiating ploy, don't you?This is the first time I can remember the players having any kind of advantage, or strength in negotiating. It would not surprise me to see the owners a lot more flexible now.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I disagree. I think it's pretty blatantly and obviously illegal, unless each individual player contract includes an Option year for the club (which the standard player contract lacks).

I think it's ultimately illegal.But the argument for its legality is that it (a) reduces player turnover, thus enhancing fan loyalty; (b) promotes parity (I don't know how, but the league always argues that everything promotes parity, so I'm sure it will come up with an argument for it here as well); and (c) since it is temporary, and since restricted free agents can still receive offers from other clubs, it is not all that restrictive.

Come to think of it . . . I'm not sure how restricted free agency would work without a draft. What are the Seahawks supposed to give up when they make Vincent Jackson an offer that the Chargers don't match?

(a) and (b) have no bearing on a rule of reason analysis. And (c) is pretty much arguing, "Oh, c'mon, it's only a little illegal!"

(a), (b), and (c) are similar to the arguments raised in Mackey. ("The focus of an inquiry under the Rule of Reason is whether the restraint imposed is justified by legitimate business purposes, and is no more restrictive than necessary.") The court in Mackey did not find that parity and fan interest were irrelevant. It found that they were not sufficient to overcome the level of harm done to the players.

 

[cvnpoka]

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

This is how I see it as well

I firmly believe any gains by players financially would be short term. No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.Look at MLB. They play TEN TIMES the games, yet have payrolls which, on average, are significantly lower than current NFL payrolls. Let's not forget that MLB ruled the American sports world just 25 or 30 years ago. Parity drove the the meteoric rise in NFL popularity, and the salary cap is the single most important piece of the puzzle to promoting parity.

Free markets often out-price themselves. Free markets based on longer term contractual obligations are most prone to problems. A strong argument could be made that the cap indirectly has led to higher payrolls (via the parity it has created) than a free market ever would have had it been the rule of thumb for the last 25 years. As long as the cap minimums represent a significant and negotiated % of revenues, it's healthy for both the league and the players.

bolded is not true in the nba, where parity has been nonexistent forever. whether the 2 leagues are comparable is debatable but i find that to be a strong data point.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

This is how I see it as well

I firmly believe any gains by players financially would be short term. No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.Look at MLB. They play TEN TIMES the games, yet have payrolls which, on average, are significantly lower than current NFL payrolls. Let's not forget that MLB ruled the American sports world just 25 or 30 years ago. Parity drove the the meteoric rise in NFL popularity, and the salary cap is the single most important piece of the puzzle to promoting parity.

Free markets often out-price themselves. Free markets based on longer term contractual obligations are most prone to problems. A strong argument could be made that the cap indirectly has led to higher payrolls (via the parity it has created) than a free market ever would have had it been the rule of thumb for the last 25 years. As long as the cap minimums represent a significant and negotiated % of revenues, it's healthy for both the league and the players.

bolded is not true in the nba, where parity has been nonexistent forever. whether the 2 leagues are comparable is debatable but i find that to be a strong data point.

Really? You think the NBA is as popular as the NFL? Or you think the fact that the NBA is unpopular has nothing to do with its lack of parity but something else entirely?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Really? You think the NBA is as popular as the NFL? Or you think the fact that the NBA is unpopular has nothing to do with its lack of parity but something else entirely?

I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of parity. The NBA was way more popular when it was dominated by the Lakers and Celtics in the 1980s, and then the Bulls in the 1990s, than it was before or after that.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

This is how I see it as well

I firmly believe any gains by players financially would be short term. No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.Look at MLB. They play TEN TIMES the games, yet have payrolls which, on average, are significantly lower than current NFL payrolls. Let's not forget that MLB ruled the American sports world just 25 or 30 years ago. Parity drove the the meteoric rise in NFL popularity, and the salary cap is the single most important piece of the puzzle to promoting parity.

Free markets often out-price themselves. Free markets based on longer term contractual obligations are most prone to problems. A strong argument could be made that the cap indirectly has led to higher payrolls (via the parity it has created) than a free market ever would have had it been the rule of thumb for the last 25 years. As long as the cap minimums represent a significant and negotiated % of revenues, it's healthy for both the league and the players.

bolded is not true in the nba, where parity has been nonexistent forever. whether the 2 leagues are comparable is debatable but i find that to be a strong data point.

Is there great parity in the NFL? Maybe - the AFC recently has been dominated by 3 teams, NE, Indy and Pitt have represented the AFC in something like 9/10 superbowls. The NFC however has had every team represented in the superbowl the last 20 years except Detroit & Minnesota

 

[Orange Crush]

I disagree. I think it's pretty blatantly and obviously illegal, unless each individual player contract includes an Option year for the club (which the standard player contract lacks).

I think it's ultimately illegal.But the argument for its legality is that it (a) reduces player turnover, thus enhancing fan loyalty; (b) promotes parity (I don't know how, but the league always argues that everything promotes parity, so I'm sure it will come up with an argument for it here as well); and © since it is temporary, and since restricted free agents can still receive offers from other clubs, it is not all that restrictive.

Come to think of it . . . I'm not sure how restricted free agency would work without a draft. What are the Seahawks supposed to give up when they make Vincent Jackson an offer that the Chargers don't match?

(a) and (b) have no bearing on a rule of reason analysis. And © is pretty much arguing, "Oh, c'mon, it's only a little illegal!"

(a), (b), and © are similar to the arguments raised in Mackey. ("The focus of an inquiry under the Rule of Reason is whether the restraint imposed is justified by legitimate business purposes, and is no more restrictive than necessary.") The court in Mackey did not find that parity and fan interest were irrelevant. It found that they were not sufficient to overcome the level of harm done to the players.

Sorry, I should have said no further bearing ... as they have been repeatedly rejected by the courts in Brown, Mackey, and McNeil. It's a lost argument. However, if history is any guide, the NFL is completely shameless in presenting long lost arguments in court.

 

[David Dodds]

I don't think the non-statutory labor exemption is available to the league that this point.

But while the draft and salary cap are clear violations of antitrust laws, the other restrictions on free agency are defensible. Moreover, the 2011 draft is covered by the previous CBA, and there was no salary cap in 2010, so there's no problem on that front going forward. Stuff like roster limits should pass antitrust scrutiny. Stuff like the franchise tag may or may not pass muster, but by the time those things are litigated, there should be a new CBA in place anyway (which I think is the answer to your final question). Using most of the 2010 rules should work okay . . .

Do you think restricting 5 year players would be considered reasonable? It doesn't seem like it would, since they went years allowing 5 year players to be unrestricted.

No, I'd get rid of restricted free agency as well. But I think restricted free agency (at least on four-year players) is defensible, even if ultimately illegal. (That is to say, while it may be illegal, it's not obviously illegal.)

I disagree. I think it's pretty blatantly and obviously illegal, unless each individual player contract includes an Option year for the club (which the standard player contract lacks).

This is my take as well. The contracts would need to cite an option year to be valid. If this all does come to pass (a league with no CBA), it will be interesting to see how teams handle contracts. With no cap and no CBA, I could see a myriad of different approaches (big guarantees, shorter terms, incentive laden, etc).

 

[fatness]

sounds like the owners are getting some bad legal advice from their lawyers. As they continue to lose in court we can only hope that they wake up and smell the roses or they are forced to start the season, either now ifthe stay isnt granted or later after appeals are exhausted

I think they've gotten terrible advice, and they appear to still be following it. Assuming the injunction isn't stayed, the NFL will ask the Appeals Court for a stay. They'll have to show harm that they couldn't show (except eggs) in the case before Judge Nelson. And when an appeal of the entire Nelson case goes to Appeals in June, the league will have to show the judge abused her discretion in granting the injunction. It's doubtful they'll be able to do that and they may not even try. David Boies now wants the Appeals Court to throw out the injunction and re-examine the entire case with Judge Nelson from scratch.That's just a desperate Hail Mary. A few more losses and I don't think the NFL will retain him any more. "You can throw out the CBA, we'll stall in negotiations until they fold, and if something goes wrong we'll lock them out, go to court, and undoubtedly win" isn't working out very well so far.

 

[fatness]

Forbes

NFL Should Accept Injunction, Hold Draft And Let The Market Run Its Route

The NFL is not so unique that we need to abandon traditional business dynamics of negotiation on a fair basis. Perhaps this fresh start –without a lockout – and with time pressures associated with the draft is just what the parties need to get the deal done. Time pressures are part of the game. Why do you think we have well established marathon bargaining sessions where both sides are tortured to go without sleep to reach an agreement? Let the NFL owners start the process now of analyzing players to meet their needs as they have always done. Let the market forces of supply and demand run their routes. Let the teams score draft touchdowns based on their business acumen in judging talent and character, and let them compete against other teams for those players. There are smart people on both sides of this issue and both sides cannot share $9 billion without each other. They will figure out the rules as they go through levels of negotiations. So it seems better to let those dynamics have playing time now, than to impose nonmarket barriers like a stay – especially since the effect of the stay is to eliminate the order that reopens the marketplace of NFL football.

 

[renesauz]

Using the nuclear option (decertification) is like a wife threatening divorce because her hubby doesn't lower the toilet seat. It threatens the very existance of the NFL and should not be used over a 5 or 6% differance in opinion on salaries, or even 10% (a figure in dispute). The threat level of such a move is unconcionable, and we should all be appalled at the maneuver no matter which side of the dispute you're on.

The players will end up with a better CBA by using that option than by not using it. There's no reason they shouldn't use it.If your boss says he's going to reduce your pay, would it be totally out of line if, in response, you threatened to leave and go somewhere else?

The players aren't threatening to "leave and go somewhere else". They ran to their truck and pulled the loaded shotgun out of the back seat. A response is indeed appropriate...a loaded weapon is not.My objections to the players have moved beyond the CBA issues. Their negotiating power is unreasonably high because of the nature of pro sports (trust laws). I UNDERSTAND and EMPATHIZE with the players objections to the owners offers (I don't fully agree with them all, but I do agree that the owner's initial offer/demand was over the top and unreasonable.)

 

[renesauz]

I'd expect the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid players to grow, and for the total amount spent on players to increase.

This is how I see it as well

I firmly believe any gains by players financially would be short term. No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.Look at MLB. They play TEN TIMES the games, yet have payrolls which, on average, are significantly lower than current NFL payrolls. Let's not forget that MLB ruled the American sports world just 25 or 30 years ago. Parity drove the the meteoric rise in NFL popularity, and the salary cap is the single most important piece of the puzzle to promoting parity.

Free markets often out-price themselves. Free markets based on longer term contractual obligations are most prone to problems. A strong argument could be made that the cap indirectly has led to higher payrolls (via the parity it has created) than a free market ever would have had it been the rule of thumb for the last 25 years. As long as the cap minimums represent a significant and negotiated % of revenues, it's healthy for both the league and the players.

bolded is not true in the nba, where parity has been nonexistent forever. whether the 2 leagues are comparable is debatable but i find that to be a strong data point.

parity is far FAR more difficult in a sport with only FIVE starters. Even then, most NBA franchises hold hope of an eventual turnaround. The same can not be said in MLB, which has no (effective) cap.

 

[thehornet]

I wonder if the owners are regretting their decision to opt out of the CBA. They are getting whipped badly this offseason.

 

[cvnpoka]

I firmly believe any gains by players financially would be short term. No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.

Look at MLB. They play TEN TIMES the games, yet have payrolls which, on average, are significantly lower than current NFL payrolls. Let's not forget that MLB ruled the American sports world just 25 or 30 years ago. Parity drove the the meteoric rise in NFL popularity, and the salary cap is the single most important piece of the puzzle to promoting parity.

Free markets often out-price themselves. Free markets based on longer term contractual obligations are most prone to problems. A strong argument could be made that the cap indirectly has led to higher payrolls (via the parity it has created) than a free market ever would have had it been the rule of thumb for the last 25 years. As long as the cap minimums represent a significant and negotiated % of revenues, it's healthy for both the league and the players.

bolded is not true in the nba, where parity has been nonexistent forever. whether the 2 leagues are comparable is debatable but i find that to be a strong data point.

parity is far FAR more difficult in a sport with only FIVE starters. Even then, most NBA franchises hold hope of an eventual turnaround. The same can not be said in MLB, which has no (effective) cap.

right, but my point was that parity has been not been shown to be a necessity for a popular and prosperous league.

 

[massraider]

Using the nuclear option (decertification) is like a wife threatening divorce because her hubby doesn't lower the toilet seat. It threatens the very existance of the NFL and should not be used over a 5 or 6% differance in opinion on salaries, or even 10% (a figure in dispute). The threat level of such a move is unconcionable, and we should all be appalled at the maneuver no matter which side of the dispute you're on.

The players will end up with a better CBA by using that option than by not using it. There's no reason they shouldn't use it.If your boss says he's going to reduce your pay, would it be totally out of line if, in response, you threatened to leave and go somewhere else?

The players aren't threatening to "leave and go somewhere else". They ran to their truck and pulled the loaded shotgun out of the back seat. A response is indeed appropriate...a loaded weapon is not.My objections to the players have moved beyond the CBA issues. Their negotiating power is unreasonably high because of the nature of pro sports (trust laws). I UNDERSTAND and EMPATHIZE with the players objections to the owners offers (I don't fully agree with them all, but I do agree that the owner's initial offer/demand was over the top and unreasonable.)

They've had zero negotiating power until this point. If they had not done this, what would the owners have done? Stalled, waited the players out, and assumed the players would get nervous, start bickering, as usual. The owners opted out of the CBA quite a while ago, has the presence of a union helped the negotiations. Have you heard of any major concessions the league has made? All I heard was less % of revenue sharing, (after we take X amount off the top), hey, maybe two more games, and a rookie wage scale.The players were not in a position of power, they HAD to do this because the NFL was certainly in no rush. Now, going nuclear might be bad long term for both sides, but the league REALLY doesn't want it. It's funny, the CBA the owners opted out of doesn't look so bad now.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I firmly believe any gains by players financially would be short term. No cap leads to little or no parity...which leads to falling popularity...which leads to falling revenues....eventually leading to falling salaries.

Look at MLB. They play TEN TIMES the games, yet have payrolls which, on average, are significantly lower than current NFL payrolls. Let's not forget that MLB ruled the American sports world just 25 or 30 years ago. Parity drove the the meteoric rise in NFL popularity, and the salary cap is the single most important piece of the puzzle to promoting parity.

Free markets often out-price themselves. Free markets based on longer term contractual obligations are most prone to problems. A strong argument could be made that the cap indirectly has led to higher payrolls (via the parity it has created) than a free market ever would have had it been the rule of thumb for the last 25 years. As long as the cap minimums represent a significant and negotiated % of revenues, it's healthy for both the league and the players.

bolded is not true in the nba, where parity has been nonexistent forever. whether the 2 leagues are comparable is debatable but i find that to be a strong data point.

parity is far FAR more difficult in a sport with only FIVE starters. Even then, most NBA franchises hold hope of an eventual turnaround. The same can not be said in MLB, which has no (effective) cap.

right, but my point was that parity has been not been shown to be a necessity for a popular and prosperous league.

There you go again calling the NBA popular. If 4th (maybe) most popular professional sport in America is your goal (and probably lagging behind college football too), then good on ya.

 

[David Dodds]

Using the nuclear option (decertification) is like a wife threatening divorce because her hubby doesn't lower the toilet seat. It threatens the very existance of the NFL and should not be used over a 5 or 6% differance in opinion on salaries, or even 10% (a figure in dispute). The threat level of such a move is unconcionable, and we should all be appalled at the maneuver no matter which side of the dispute you're on.

The players will end up with a better CBA by using that option than by not using it. There's no reason they shouldn't use it.If your boss says he's going to reduce your pay, would it be totally out of line if, in response, you threatened to leave and go somewhere else?

The players aren't threatening to "leave and go somewhere else". They ran to their truck and pulled the loaded shotgun out of the back seat. A response is indeed appropriate...a loaded weapon is not.My objections to the players have moved beyond the CBA issues. Their negotiating power is unreasonably high because of the nature of pro sports (trust laws). I UNDERSTAND and EMPATHIZE with the players objections to the owners offers (I don't fully agree with them all, but I do agree that the owner's initial offer/demand was over the top and unreasonable.)

They've had zero negotiating power until this point. If they had not done this, what would the owners have done? Stalled, waited the players out, and assumed the players would get nervous, start bickering, as usual. The owners opted out of the CBA quite a while ago, has the presence of a union helped the negotiations. Have you heard of any major concessions the league has made? All I heard was less % of revenue sharing, (after we take X amount off the top), hey, maybe two more games, and a rookie wage scale.The players were not in a position of power, they HAD to do this because the NFL was certainly in no rush. Now, going nuclear might be bad long term for both sides, but the league REALLY doesn't want it. It's funny, the CBA the owners opted out of doesn't look so bad now.

Exactly. The owners gamed the TV contracts so they would have a $4B advantage in stalling the players into taking a horrible deal. Let's not forget that the owners also said take this offer as all subsequent offers later will be worse. The owners had no intention of ever compromising or sharing any documentation to show they needed money.. Their plan was to ram it down the players throats because they could. Except the owners forgot one thing. The CBA is what protects them from breaking the law. The rules they love (that keep the costs contained) like restricted free agency, salary cap, etc all are lost with no CBA. The owners played their hand, went through the motions with the mediator they chose because their strategy was to outlast the players until they caved. Why would the players keep their union and continue to negotiate where it's clear they can't win? By busting up the union and attacking all of the cost controls, they changed the dynamics of the negotiations considerably. As others have stated, I bet the owners actually are regretting opting out of the CBA right now.

 

[3nOut]

Exactly. The owners gamed the TV contracts so they would have a $4B advantage in stalling the players into taking a horrible deal. Let's not forget that the owners also said take this offer as all subsequent offers later will be worse. The owners had no intention of ever compromising or sharing any documentation to show they needed money.. Their plan was to ram it down the players throats because they could.

Yes, the owners were wrong with that TV deal they worked out, but I am surprised that you as a business owner would agree with the bolded part. If and when FBGs next raise their subscription price, and someone asks you to show them your books before they agree to a higher rate, wold you do it? Or would you say 'trust me' and I know what i need to charge in order for this site to be successful?

Except the owners forgot one thing. The CBA is what protects them from breaking the law. The rules they love (that keep the costs contained) like restricted free agency, salary cap, etc all are lost with no CBA. The owners played their hand, went through the motions with the mediator they chose because their strategy was to outlast the players until they caved.

I don't think the owners ever forgot that. Noone says that tey don't want a CBA. Its the players who are suing the NFL and claiming many of the things oin the CBA are illegal.

Why would the players keep their union and continue to negotiate where it's clear they can't win? By busting up the union and attacking all of the cost controls, they changed the dynamics of the negotiations considerably. As others have stated, I bet the owners actually are regretting opting out of the CBA right now.

If not now then when? In two years? Two years ago instead of extending the deal again? Should they keep extending this CBA indefinitely? They already extended it several times. This was going to happen sooner or later.

 

[fatness]

It's funny, the CBA the owners opted out of doesn't look so bad now.

If it was still in effect I don't think either side would be disappointed right now.

 

[massraider]

It's funny, the CBA the owners opted out of doesn't look so bad now.

If it was still in effect I don't think either side would be disappointed right now.

Right, which is why I think a deal gets done. The players could probably push their advantage, and have franchise/transition tags removed, etc. I doubt it'll come to that. It wouldn't surprise me if the new CBA looked a lot like the old one.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What I don't get is why the sides aren't negotiating and why the owner's aren't petitioning congress.

Assuming you're serious here...If this issue somehow got onto the Congressional calendar would stand a 0.0% chance of passing both houses and being signed into law. The NFL is far more likely to lose what limited protections is already has than being granted sweeping new anti-union powers.

 

[fatness]

It's funny, the CBA the owners opted out of doesn't look so bad now.

If it was still in effect I don't think either side would be disappointed right now.

Right, which is why I think a deal gets done. The players could probably push their advantage, and have franchise/transition tags removed, etc. I doubt it'll come to that. It wouldn't surprise me if the new CBA looked a lot like the old one.

I think both sides will be very interested in negotiating between now and the actual antitrust hearing, if there's no stay of the injunction.

 

[fatness]

Goodell should prepare to hear boos at draft

Meanwhile the players have remained, at least outwardly, together. Last week’s report of a splinter group of “mid-tier” players seeking a place at the negotiating table has fizzled. The momentum of this week’s victories should aid unity. Union head DeMaurice Smith has managed his team well.

Perhaps most telling is that the public hasn’t rallied around the owners. It usually does in sports labor cases because it thinks owners are supposed to be rich while athletes are lucky to be.

The arrogance of too many owners has become increasingly clear as this lockout stumbles along. The NFL’s game plan appears to be failing, yet no one is making halftime adjustments.

Goodell’s reaction in the Wall Street Journal to Nelson’s ruling was particularly absurd, perhaps his worst moment in nearly five years on the job. The owners have valid arguments and if they were presented to the public with intellectual honesty then that’s fine. (For what’s it worth, I don’t care who “wins” in this battle. It has no personal bearing on anything for me.) What Goodell published though was an insult to things like facts and logic. It was the work of an organization that didn’t respect the intelligence of the audience

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

 

[Orange Crush]

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

I think it's because the players' strategy leads to games being played, while the owners' leads to games being cancelled. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

 

[cvnpoka]

right, but my point was that parity has been not been shown to be a necessity for a popular and prosperous league.

There you go again calling the NBA popular. If 4th (maybe) most popular professional sport in America is your goal (and probably lagging behind college football too), then good on ya.

how are you measuring this?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

I think it's because the players' strategy leads to games being played, while the owners' leads to games being cancelled. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

That's why Goodell's op-ed in yesterday's WSJ was kind of odd. He stressed that if the players get their way in court, there will be no draft. He didn't mention that if the owners get their way in court, there will be no football games. Realistically, neither side really wants what it's asking for. But if we're going by what they're asking for . . . I'd rather we still have football games but do away with the draft, rather than still having a draft but doing away with football games. If those are the choices, I think most people would side with the players.Focusing on what each side wants from litigation probably isn't the best way for the owners to win fan support.

 

[fatness]

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

I think it's because the players' strategy leads to games being played, while the owners' leads to games being cancelled. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

I think so too. Another poll they showed had over 50% of fans expecting games to be lost this year in February and March. That dropped to 24 or 26% in April (injunction month).

 

[Rockchild]

Rene, it seems that the lockout was the first drone missile to be fired.

Wasn't the lockout a RESPONSE to decertification? IE: It was NOT the first missile, at least not the first nuclear missile.

I would argue negotiating a lesser TV deal knowing they were going to lockout the players was the first missile!!

 

[cobalt_27]

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

I think it's because the players' strategy leads to games being played, while the owners' leads to games being cancelled. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

That's why Goodell's op-ed in yesterday's WSJ was kind of odd. He stressed that if the players get their way in court, there will be no draft. He didn't mention that if the owners get their way in court, there will be no football games. Realistically, neither side really wants what it's asking for. But if we're going by what they're asking for . . . I'd rather we still have football games but do away with the draft, rather than still having a draft but doing away with football games. If those are the choices, I think most people would side with the players.Focusing on what each side wants from litigation probably isn't the best way for the owners to win fan support.

Can you please explain how you arrive at this conclusion? That's not at all the case. At least not necessarily and simply puts the onus on both sides to collectively bargain until they find common ground. Now, if you think the players' position would be too unreasonable and that they would be too stubborn--or the owners the same--then there wouldn't be football. But, it's not entirely clear that the posturing and grandstanding by both sides would extend into August, September, and beyond to eliminate games from the schedule.I understand you have a bias, as do I. But, this statement assumes a lot, and certainly is not a position Goodell feels is accurate...seems unfair to criticize him for not including that in his WSJ article.

 

[Hoosier16]

ESPN was showing a poll today in which about 25% of the fans backed the owners in this dispute and 75% backed the players. I believe the responses were around 300,000. That's unprecedented.

I think it's because the players' strategy leads to games being played, while the owners' leads to games being cancelled. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

That's why Goodell's op-ed in yesterday's WSJ was kind of odd. He stressed that if the players get their way in court, there will be no draft. He didn't mention that if the owners get their way in court, there will be no football games. Realistically, neither side really wants what it's asking for. But if we're going by what they're asking for . . . I'd rather we still have football games but do away with the draft, rather than still having a draft but doing away with football games. If those are the choices, I think most people would side with the players.Focusing on what each side wants from litigation probably isn't the best way for the owners to win fan support.

Can you please explain how you arrive at this conclusion? That's not at all the case. At least not necessarily and simply puts the onus on both sides to collectively bargain until they find common ground. Now, if you think the players' position would be too unreasonable and that they would be too stubborn--or the owners the same--then there wouldn't be football. But, it's not entirely clear that the posturing and grandstanding by both sides would extend into August, September, and beyond to eliminate games from the schedule.I understand you have a bias, as do I. But, this statement assumes a lot, and certainly is not a position Goodell feels is accurate...seems unfair to criticize him for not including that in his WSJ article.

Without the $4B warchest, I don't think the owners can afford not to play the season.