Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Actually, let me rephrase what I said before.

I think that, without antitrust laws, collusion in restraint of trade is more likely to happen in sports leagues than it is in other industries. But I think the results of such collusion would be less harmful in sports leagues than it would be in other industries.

So I'll retract my statement that I think the case for having antitrust laws in sports is stronger than it is for other industries. It's stronger in some ways and weaker in other ways.

 

[CalBear]

Free markets might dictate that NY could support 4 NFL franchises and that Tampa can support none (in a 32 team field - which, in and of itself - is an anti-competitive restriction).

As I noted, the Florida Marlins have the highest operating profit in Major League Baseball, not to mention two World Series titles in the past 15 years, so you have to go a long way to prove that it is inherently necessary for a major sport to mandate payroll parity to operate effectively. Frankly, if Buffalo can't support an NFL franchise, there shouldn't be a franchise in Buffalo.

 

[JFurby]

You're going to have to bring some strong arguments, or you'll end up sounding foolish.

Enter strong argument here or risk sounding foolish...

The basic ideas of rule of law and property rights that underlie our employment system have their roots in the Magna Carta, yes.

This seems like more of a reach to me than the Vikings taking Christian Ponder with the 12th overall pick. Why not take the root of the argument all the way back to the tenth commandment while we are at it?Please don't let my little jab kill the banter. The passive-aggressive undertone of those clinging to their morally-rooted positions on an internet forum makes for a pretty amusing read. Carry on.

 

[sweetness34]

But we don't want the Bills to compete with the Redskins in terms of how big a payroll their owners can afford (do you?). Are you saying you are for "free market football"?

I think it is very difficult to claim that the Redskins competing with the Bills in terms of paying players would inherently result in irreparable harm to the players, the owners as a class, or the fans. Major League Baseball seems to be doing just fine with its payroll disparity. The Florida Marlins led the league in operating income. Revenues are up and almost every franchise is making money.

From a business standpoint - no argument.From strictly a fan's perspective - ugh. (I am a Royals fan.........yes, that explains a lot. Haha)

 

[CalBear]

The basic ideas of rule of law and property rights that underlie our employment system have their roots in the Magna Carta, yes.

This seems like more of a reach to me than the Vikings taking Christian Ponder with the 12th overall pick. Why not take the root of the argument all the way back to the tenth commandment while we are at it?

Well, among other things:

No-one is to be distrained to do more service for a knight’s fee or for any other free tenement than is due from it.

"distrained" means seized/forced. This basic principle of pay concomitant with work was relatively new at the time of the Magna Carta, and it still underlies all employment law. The principles set forth in the Magna Carta, through several armed conflicts and thousands of court cases, became the basis for English Common Law, which in turn became the basis for American law. Did you know that you have rights which aren't specified in the Constitution? For example, the right to travel. It became so fundamental that by 1787, it wasn't considered necessary to codify it in the Constitution. That right and many others (including some around contracts) come from English common law.

 

[jbobbett]

Free markets might dictate that NY could support 4 NFL franchises and that Tampa can support none (in a 32 team field - which, in and of itself - is an anti-competitive restriction).

As I noted, the Florida Marlins have the highest operating profit in Major League Baseball, not to mention two World Series titles in the past 15 years, so you have to go a long way to prove that it is inherently necessary for a major sport to mandate payroll parity to operate effectively. Frankly, if Buffalo can't support an NFL franchise, there shouldn't be a franchise in Buffalo.

I think it is very difficult to claim that the Redskins competing with the Bills in terms of paying players would inherently result in irreparable harm to the players, the owners as a class, or the fans. Major League Baseball seems to be doing just fine with its payroll disparity. The Florida Marlins led the league in operating income. Revenues are up and almost every franchise is making money.

So in the free market you are advocating Buffalo may not be able to support a franchise. And that would not be irreparable harm to the Bills players, owners, or fans. Do I have that right?

 

[CalBear]

Free markets might dictate that NY could support 4 NFL franchises and that Tampa can support none (in a 32 team field - which, in and of itself - is an anti-competitive restriction).

As I noted, the Florida Marlins have the highest operating profit in Major League Baseball, not to mention two World Series titles in the past 15 years, so you have to go a long way to prove that it is inherently necessary for a major sport to mandate payroll parity to operate effectively. Frankly, if Buffalo can't support an NFL franchise, there shouldn't be a franchise in Buffalo.

I think it is very difficult to claim that the Redskins competing with the Bills in terms of paying players would inherently result in irreparable harm to the players, the owners as a class, or the fans. Major League Baseball seems to be doing just fine with its payroll disparity. The Florida Marlins led the league in operating income. Revenues are up and almost every franchise is making money.

So in the free market you are advocating Buffalo may not be able to support a franchise. And that would not be irreparable harm to the Bills players, owners, or fans. Do I have that right?

Is the NFL better for having a franchise in Buffalo instead of LA or Toronto? I would suggest that moving the Bills to either of those cities would result in more revenue, more income, more fans showing up at games, and more jobs related to the team. The NFL has survived plenty of team moves without irreparable harm.

 

[Incogneto]

...I just want football :(

 

[Cripster]

It looks like many of you in this thread have done your homework on the labor issue. To me, I really don't care whose fault it is ( both side have some egg on their face). What I am interested in is what, other than players losing game checks, will be the catalyst for a new CBA. I really think the owners will prevail with the lockout appeal. If so, come July 1st or so, neither side has superior leverage. As we roll into September, the owners have leverage. If the owners prevail in the 8th circuit, I just see missed games. I know most people say we will play a full season ( if you believe polls). I believe that absent a lockout.

What am I missing?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm not telling you what to talk about, but I am telling you that if you're going to assert that hundreds of years of legal precedent carefully constructed to balance the interests of employers and employees is "wrong", you're going to have to bring some strong arguments, or you'll end up sounding foolish.

I personally blame 'Talk Back Live' a CNN afternoon show c. 1993 for initiating the idea that everybody with access to a cellphone, a camera or an Internet connection has reason to expect that their opinion is a good one - without regard for history, law, basic facts or expertise in a field.And get off my lawn.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not telling you what to talk about, but I am telling you that if you're going to assert that hundreds of years of legal precedent carefully constructed to balance the interests of employers and employees is "wrong", you're going to have to bring some strong arguments, or you'll end up sounding foolish.

I personally blame 'Talk Back Live' a CNN afternoon show c. 1993 for initiating the idea that everybody with access to a cellphone, a camera or an Internet connection has reason to expect that their opinion is a good one - without regard for history, law, basic facts or expertise in a field.And get off my lawn.

We disagree fundamentally, but this was good.

 

[fatness]

Doesn't surprise me at all to finally hear some negative feedback on these rouge minicamps./

Several of them have been wearing eye-liner as well.

 

[fatness]

I read the Nelson decision. The problem I have is the idea that the players involved would suffer "irreparable harm" that a boatload of money couldn't fix.

Um, where is this money that's supposed to fix it?

 

[fatness]

"Rumours fly of a complete NFL shutdown."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/



We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal. The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout. Instead, the league essentially would be going out of business.

I've thought about this. First of all it's very unlikely to happen since all the owners know there's no way for them to make more football-connected money than what they had until the end of last season. Second, if the league still decided to go out of business, you can bet that some of the more aggressive owners would start almost immediately with another league which wouldn't be weighed down by what they see as deadbeat owners. All those players to pick from, no limit on what they could offer them, a division or 2 of all-star teams, and goodbye to the rest of the NFL.

 

[Insomniac]

I appreciate this post. It is the grayness of the law which makes me call it inadequate. I don't blame the players (or the people who support them) one bit for using those laws to their maximum advantage. Although I fell strongly that pro sports need and deserve a more complete and well-defined trust exemption, it isn't personal. IN the end, you're correct in that what we all want is competitive football!

If you don't blame the players for using the law to their maximum advantage, there's no way you'd blame the owners pushing the envelope of an anti-trust exemption. If you gave them a total exemption they could set a maximum salary of $500 K and completely eliminate all types of free agency. Even if they had free agency they could require 10 years before the player gets a chance to test the market. There's no doubt they'd push their advantage as far as they could.So what rights and limitations (if any) are you giving NFL owners?

 

[3nOut]

Jusr because someone wants to negotiate doesn't mean you HAVE to.

This is exactly the problem. The league has been built on the success of cooperation and compromise, with the two sides getting a little better deal here, a little worse deal there. By opening up the anti-trust can of worms, the players threaten the very foundation upon which both sides have profited. Rather than negotiate because they feel they don't have to, they are placing the league in jeopardy and at the hands of the judicial branch. Nobody wants this, not even the players.Ultimately, I think a deal gets struck because I don't think the players really want to go through the pain of missing paychecks. But, if they do long-term damage to the league because of this...I go back to my original stance all along...#### the players.

 

[jbobbett]

I appreciate this post. It is the grayness of the law which makes me call it inadequate. I don't blame the players (or the people who support them) one bit for using those laws to their maximum advantage. Although I fell strongly that pro sports need and deserve a more complete and well-defined trust exemption, it isn't personal. IN the end, you're correct in that what we all want is competitive football!

If you don't blame the players for using the law to their maximum advantage, there's no way you'd blame the owners pushing the envelope of an anti-trust exemption. If you gave them a total exemption they could set a maximum salary of $500 K and completely eliminate all types of free agency. Even if they had free agency they could require 10 years before the player gets a chance to test the market. There's no doubt they'd push their advantage as far as they could.So what rights and limitations (if any) are you giving NFL owners?

The players would be represented by their union.

 

[daveR]

I read the Nelson decision. The problem I have is the idea that the players involved would suffer "irreparable harm" that a boatload of money couldn't fix.

Um, where is this money that's supposed to fix it?

When someone wins an anti-trust case, the offender pays (triple).

 

[renesauz]

So....labor unions and the illegality of monopolies was addressed in the Magna Carta? Really?

The basic ideas of rule of law and property rights that underlie our employment system have their roots in the Magna Carta, yes.

Absolutely, but trying to claim some sort of legal precedent from it pertaining to this case is beyond ludicrous.Some folks on the player side seem to think that some of us on the owners side have no respect for law and order, or for individual rights. That's simply not true. Folks are quick to forget that owners and businesses have rights too. Being a billionare shouldn't grant someone extra rights, but it sure as heck shouldn't take rights away either. Deciding what to pay your employee is a right every bit as basic as the right of employee to decide whether or not to work for you.The right of FUTURE NFL players to maximize their salary is every bit as valid and important as the rights of current superstars to maximize their salary.The right of the owners to run a healthy business is every bit as valid (if not as important to many) as the rights of players to choose their own location of employment.Truly free markets don't restrain businesses either.Trust laws were designed and meant to break up monopolies that hurt the public interest. The NFL is not hurting the public interest. A VERY strong argument could be made that the public interest is best seerved by allowing full collusion in the NFL.Labor laws and laws supporting unions were written and designed with poor factory workers working under horrid conditions for ridiculously low wages in mind. They weren't written with millionares in mind. Those workers were fighting for both themselves AND those that followed them to change working environments and conditions. These players are fighting, IMHO, for themselves, and themselves only. These are NOT factory workers working for (less than the equivalent of) minimum wage under extremely hazardous conditions for 60+ hours a week. They are pampered, extremely well paid athletes. They are NOT treated as slaves or property. The players right to negotiate a deal is important, and must be preserved. On that we can agree whole-heartedly. BUt collusion in the NFL is hardly the same as if McDonalds, BK, and Wendy's all got together to fix burger prices and employee wages. The public is better served (arguably if your a health nut) by competition there, where we get dollar menu items, and if an employee doesn't like his McDonalds boss, he can leave and work at Wendy's any time he wants.The public interest is not best served (IMHO) by NFL teams with wildly varied salaries and by a complete "free market" labor system with no draft or FA limitations.

 

[renesauz]

But we don't want the Bills to compete with the Redskins in terms of how big a payroll their owners can afford (do you?). Are you saying you are for "free market football"?

I think it is very difficult to claim that the Redskins competing with the Bills in terms of paying players would inherently result in irreparable harm to the players, the owners as a class, or the fans. Major League Baseball seems to be doing just fine with its payroll disparity. The Florida Marlins led the league in operating income. Revenues are up and almost every franchise is making money.

There have been long discussion on this in other threads. SOme question have not been answered, such as:Is baseball's money maximized by the disparity? Baseball was the national sport and passion for a LOOOOOOooong time. It isnt now. Why? We may disagree on this anser, but I think a big reason for it is the fact that Baseball doesn't have nearly the (appearance of) parity (or real parity depending on your position/analyses).Is Baseball really that comparable? A bad baseball team will still beat a good team 30-40% of the time. You can go watch your team play the champs and have a reasonable chance to win. A bad football team does not enjoy anything remotely close to that level of success. The worst football teams in any given year enjoy less than a 5-10% win rate against the top football teams. IN other words, the very nature of the sport of baseball promotes a type of parity, and resultant level of interest, that football,by its very nature, cannot hope to match.

 

[renesauz]

Free markets might dictate that NY could support 4 NFL franchises and that Tampa can support none (in a 32 team field - which, in and of itself - is an anti-competitive restriction).

As I noted, the Florida Marlins have the highest operating profit in Major League Baseball, not to mention two World Series titles in the past 15 years, so you have to go a long way to prove that it is inherently necessary for a major sport to mandate payroll parity to operate effectively. Frankly, if Buffalo can't support an NFL franchise, there shouldn't be a franchise in Buffalo.

There is no problem with this belief and ideal. But I have to wonder where you draw a line. The kind of free market system you seem to promote would not sustain the level of competition and league health we've enjoyed. I firmly believe it would create a system with 4 or 5 dominant teams, and 20 or so feeder teams while a few teams would cease altogether (Buffalo being one of the later). Is this what you want?

 

[Mello]

So....labor unions and the illegality of monopolies was addressed in the Magna Carta? Really?

The basic ideas of rule of law and property rights that underlie our employment system have their roots in the Magna Carta, yes.

Absolutely, but trying to claim some sort of legal precedent from it pertaining to this case is beyond ludicrous.Some folks on the player side seem to think that some of us on the owners side have no respect for law and order, or for individual rights. That's simply not true. Folks are quick to forget that owners and businesses have rights too. Being a billionare shouldn't grant someone extra rights, but it sure as heck shouldn't take rights away either. Deciding what to pay your employee is a right every bit as basic as the right of employee to decide whether or not to work for you.The right of FUTURE NFL players to maximize their salary is every bit as valid and important as the rights of current superstars to maximize their salary.The right of the owners to run a healthy business is every bit as valid (if not as important to many) as the rights of players to choose their own location of employment.Truly free markets don't restrain businesses either.Trust laws were designed and meant to break up monopolies that hurt the public interest. The NFL is not hurting the public interest. A VERY strong argument could be made that the public interest is best seerved by allowing full collusion in the NFL.Labor laws and laws supporting unions were written and designed with poor factory workers working under horrid conditions for ridiculously low wages in mind. They weren't written with millionares in mind. Those workers were fighting for both themselves AND those that followed them to change working environments and conditions. These players are fighting, IMHO, for themselves, and themselves only. These are NOT factory workers working for (less than the equivalent of) minimum wage under extremely hazardous conditions for 60+ hours a week. They are pampered, extremely well paid athletes. They are NOT treated as slaves or property. The players right to negotiate a deal is important, and must be preserved. On that we can agree whole-heartedly. BUt collusion in the NFL is hardly the same as if McDonalds, BK, and Wendy's all got together to fix burger prices and employee wages. The public is better served (arguably if your a health nut) by competition there, where we get dollar menu items, and if an employee doesn't like his McDonalds boss, he can leave and work at Wendy's any time he wants.The public interest is not best served (IMHO) by NFL teams with wildly varied salaries and by a complete "free market" labor system with no draft or FA limitations.

So workers that make a lot of money should have less rights? I don't see the logic in that. Collusion in the NFL is exactly the same thing as fast food joints. Some players are kept at an artificially lower salary than they could make if there were leagues competing to see who could offer the most money for players. The amount of money the employee is making doesn't matter. It could arguably be in the best interests of fans to have competition between multiple football leagues as well. If there was an equal competing league in place, the NFL would probably get out of a lot of its exclusive agreements which are not in fans' best interests such as placing games on the NFL network when many people don't have the option of getting it, Sunday ticket only available on DirecTV, and EA's exclusive deal for Madden.

 

[renesauz]

I appreciate this post. It is the grayness of the law which makes me call it inadequate. I don't blame the players (or the people who support them) one bit for using those laws to their maximum advantage. Although I fell strongly that pro sports need and deserve a more complete and well-defined trust exemption, it isn't personal. IN the end, you're correct in that what we all want is competitive football!

If you don't blame the players for using the law to their maximum advantage, there's no way you'd blame the owners pushing the envelope of an anti-trust exemption. If you gave them a total exemption they could set a maximum salary of $500 K and completely eliminate all types of free agency. Even if they had free agency they could require 10 years before the player gets a chance to test the market. There's no doubt they'd push their advantage as far as they could.So what rights and limitations (if any) are you giving NFL owners?

Players would still have the power of the strike. YOur hypothetical simply wouldn't occur. Owners making tens ot hundreds of millions in profits aren't going to allow their golden goose to be killed...the players would still get paid extrememly well, and they'd be far from powerless. Just ask the MLB players.

 

[renesauz]

So workers that make a lot of money should have less rights? I don't see the logic in that. Collusion in the NFL is exactly the same thing as fast food joints. Some players are kept at an artificially lower salary than they could make if there were leagues competing to see who could offer the most money for players. The amount of money the employee is making doesn't matter. It could arguably be in the best interests of fans to have competition between multiple football leagues as well. If there was an equal competing league in place, the NFL would probably get out of a lot of its exclusive agreements which are not in fans' best interests such as placing games on the NFL network when many people don't have the option of getting it, Sunday ticket only available on DirecTV, and EA's exclusive deal for Madden.

Hardly, but these kinds of rights are neither universal nor uniquely personal. Many "rights" we claim infringe somewhat on the rights of others. Many rights demand a balance.SOme rights are limited for specific individuals for good reasons. Convicted criminals lose their right to bare arms. People who drive drunk lose their right to drive. I have no problem with some minor restrictions on labor rights for guys being paid millions to play a game, a career they enter of their own free will. These guys are already rich enough, and in demand enough, that granting them their full "rights" under current labor laws begins to infringe on the rights and privelages of the businesses they work for. The balance, in this case, has been lost.

 

[CalBear]

There is no problem with this belief and ideal. But I have to wonder where you draw a line. The kind of free market system you seem to promote would not sustain the level of competition and league health we've enjoyed. I firmly believe it would create a system with 4 or 5 dominant teams, and 20 or so feeder teams while a few teams would cease altogether (Buffalo being one of the later). Is this what you want?

Let me be clear: I am not saying I want a free market system in the NFL. I am saying that I don't see a legal argument that the NFL could not possibly operate under a free market system, and therefore NFL players should be legally compelled to give up their rights as employees. The NFL with free market employment would look different than it does today, but it could still operate.

 

[Mello]

So workers that make a lot of money should have less rights? I don't see the logic in that. Collusion in the NFL is exactly the same thing as fast food joints. Some players are kept at an artificially lower salary than they could make if there were leagues competing to see who could offer the most money for players. The amount of money the employee is making doesn't matter. It could arguably be in the best interests of fans to have competition between multiple football leagues as well. If there was an equal competing league in place, the NFL would probably get out of a lot of its exclusive agreements which are not in fans' best interests such as placing games on the NFL network when many people don't have the option of getting it, Sunday ticket only available on DirecTV, and EA's exclusive deal for Madden.

Hardly, but these kinds of rights are neither universal nor uniquely personal. Many "rights" we claim infringe somewhat on the rights of others. Many rights demand a balance.SOme rights are limited for specific individuals for good reasons. Convicted criminals lose their right to bare arms. People who drive drunk lose their right to drive. I have no problem with some minor restrictions on labor rights for guys being paid millions to play a game, a career they enter of their own free will. These guys are already rich enough, and in demand enough, that granting them their full "rights" under current labor laws begins to infringe on the rights and privelages of the businesses they work for. The balance, in this case, has been lost.

Your comparing people losing rights because they've abused them and broke the law to players losing rights because you think they are already rich enough. That doesn't seem legitimate to me. Also, your wanting to give the owners more power to control their labor force than any owner of any other business in this country simply because many players make what you think is enough money.I guess we'll agree to disagree, but that's some weak justification in my opinion. Many new laws have been passed based on even worse reasoning though.

 

[Wadsworth]

So workers that make a lot of money should have less rights? I don't see the logic in that. Collusion in the NFL is exactly the same thing as fast food joints. Some players are kept at an artificially lower salary than they could make if there were leagues competing to see who could offer the most money for players. The amount of money the employee is making doesn't matter. It could arguably be in the best interests of fans to have competition between multiple football leagues as well. If there was an equal competing league in place, the NFL would probably get out of a lot of its exclusive agreements which are not in fans' best interests such as placing games on the NFL network when many people don't have the option of getting it, Sunday ticket only available on DirecTV, and EA's exclusive deal for Madden.

Hardly, but these kinds of rights are neither universal nor uniquely personal. Many "rights" we claim infringe somewhat on the rights of others. Many rights demand a balance.SOme rights are limited for specific individuals for good reasons. Convicted criminals lose their right to bare arms. People who drive drunk lose their right to drive.

I have no problem with some minor restrictions on labor rights for guys being paid millions to play a game, a career they enter of their own free will. These guys are already rich enough, and in demand enough, that granting them their full "rights" under current labor laws begins to infringe on the rights and privelages of the businesses they work for. The balance, in this case, has been lost.

The owners are already rich enough and NFL teams are in enough demand, that granting the players only limited rights under current labor law begins to infringe on the rights and privileges of the employees of their business.

 

[renesauz]

Your comparing people losing rights because they've abused them and broke the law to players losing rights because you think they are already rich enough. That doesn't seem legitimate to me. Also, your wanting to give the owners more power to control their labor force than any owner of any other business in this country simply because many players make what you think is enough money.I guess we'll agree to disagree, but that's some weak justification in my opinion. Many new laws have been passed based on even worse reasoning though.

I wasn't trying to draw that hard a comparison. I was simply pointing out the fact that all rights, no matter how important we deem them, no matter how crucial they are, have limits. Just because most of us can readily and freely choose our specific location of employment does not necessarily mean that that right should be automatically granted to everyone in all businesses and professions. Our military members give up this right on a regular basis, and they aren't paid millions to do it.Professional football players give up a few minor rights some of us consider pretty important, but they do so with open eyes, and for good reasons. They are well-compensated in terms of prestige, and pay. I don't feel even remotely bad for them or their inability to fully explore a free market with their skills, and I don't think any of us should. As far as employer control....NFL owners have more control over their employees in some ways, but far less control in others. There are no equivalent businesses where even the LOWEST ranked employees have not only a union backing them up, but are able to negotiate individual contracts of AT LEAST 300k per year, and often much higher. The owner of the local McDonalds can hire and fire at will, easily replacing anyone he loses. The talents of the NFL players give them far more negotiating power and leverage than employees of most businesses. Using the same exact labor laws for these guys doesn't put them on equal footing as employees of other businesses...it puts them on a MUCH GREATER footing. IMHO, a footing which would be unreasonable and unfair (to their employers...the NFL).

 

[CalBear]

As far as employer control....NFL owners have more control over their employees in some ways, but far less control in others. There are no equivalent businesses where even the LOWEST ranked employees have not only a union backing them up, but are able to negotiate individual contracts of AT LEAST 300k per year, and often much higher. The owner of the local McDonalds can hire and fire at will, easily replacing anyone he loses. The talents of the NFL players give them far more negotiating power and leverage than employees of most businesses. Using the same exact labor laws for these guys doesn't put them on equal footing as employees of other businesses...it puts them on a MUCH GREATER footing. IMHO, a footing which would be unreasonable and unfair (to their employers...the NFL).

Your point here seems to be that because NFL players have skills which are unique and highly valuable, they should accept less compensation than what they're actually worth.

 

[Wadsworth]

Your comparing people losing rights because they've abused them and broke the law to players losing rights because you think they are already rich enough. That doesn't seem legitimate to me. Also, your wanting to give the owners more power to control their labor force than any owner of any other business in this country simply because many players make what you think is enough money.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, but that's some weak justification in my opinion. Many new laws have been passed based on even worse reasoning though.

I wasn't trying to draw that hard a comparison. I was simply pointing out the fact that all rights, no matter how important we deem them, no matter how crucial they are, have limits. Just because most of us can readily and freely choose our specific location of employment does not necessarily mean that that right should be automatically granted to everyone in all businesses and professions. Our military members give up this right on a regular basis, and they aren't paid millions to do it.Professional football players give up a few minor rights some of us consider pretty important, but they do so with open eyes, and for good reasons. They are well-compensated in terms of prestige, and pay. I don't feel even remotely bad for them or their inability to fully explore a free market with their skills, and I don't think any of us should.

As far as employer control....NFL owners have more control over their employees in some ways, but far less control in others. There are no equivalent businesses where even the LOWEST ranked employees have not only a union backing them up, but are able to negotiate individual contracts of AT LEAST 300k per year, and often much higher. The owner of the local McDonalds can hire and fire at will, easily replacing anyone he loses. The talents of the NFL players give them far more negotiating power and leverage than employees of most businesses. Using the same exact labor laws for these guys doesn't put them on equal footing as employees of other businesses...it puts them on a MUCH GREATER footing. IMHO, a footing which would be unreasonable and unfair (to their employers...the NFL).

Players are not the lowest ranked employee of any NFL team. You keep drawing these strange comparisons to criminals and McDonald employees for guys that are skilled athletes with thousands of hours invested in learning their craft. Of course it's not like a McDonald's worker.

 

[renesauz]

As far as employer control....NFL owners have more control over their employees in some ways, but far less control in others. There are no equivalent businesses where even the LOWEST ranked employees have not only a union backing them up, but are able to negotiate individual contracts of AT LEAST 300k per year, and often much higher. The owner of the local McDonalds can hire and fire at will, easily replacing anyone he loses. The talents of the NFL players give them far more negotiating power and leverage than employees of most businesses. Using the same exact labor laws for these guys doesn't put them on equal footing as employees of other businesses...it puts them on a MUCH GREATER footing. IMHO, a footing which would be unreasonable and unfair (to their employers...the NFL).

Your point here seems to be that because NFL players have skills which are unique and highly valuable, they should accept less compensation than what they're actually worth.

Hardly. My point is not nearly so simple. My point is that the negotiating power of the players is extraordinarily strong even in a labor market which is NOT free. SO strong, and so well-compensated in fact, that when you take into account some of the limitations of their employers, I find it almost unreasonable to grant them the same free labor market that the rest of us enjoy because I believe they already hold more power and control than any of us. Further, they enter this arrangement freely with open arms, with huge grins as they are drafted. I do in fact believe in a free labor market, but much like the right to bare arms, or the right to drive, I beleive there are times and circumstances where it's both reasonable and fair to restrict or revoke that right. IE: I do not see the NFL's current system (under the last CBA) as even remotely unfair in that regard. The players apparently didn't either. (The fight has been over pure $$$, not rights)

 

[renesauz]

Players are not the lowest ranked employee of any NFL team. You keep drawing these strange comparisons to criminals and McDonald employees for guys that are skilled athletes with thousands of hours invested in learning their craft. Of course it's not like a McDonald's worker.

I keep drawing the comparisons because people keep wanting to use the same exact rules and laws that the McDonalds workers have. Others talk about rights as if all "rights" are sacred and without limits.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Players are not the lowest ranked employee of any NFL team. You keep drawing these strange comparisons to criminals and McDonald employees for guys that are skilled athletes with thousands of hours invested in learning their craft. Of course it's not like a McDonald's worker.

I keep drawing the comparisons because people keep wanting to use the same exact rules and laws that the McDonalds workers have. Others talk about rights as if all "rights" are sacred and without limits.

Im pretty sure McDonalds workers r not in a union that decertified.

 

[fatness]

Another courtroom confrontation commences Thursday in the Twin Cities between NFL owners and their locked-out players, with a federal judge poised to punish the league for violating the collective bargaining agreement by converting television revenue into a war chest.

U.S. District Court Judge David S. Doty, the NFL's great white whale of litigation, is considering whether to issue monetary damages to the players and block owners from collecting $4 billion in TV rights fees. A hearing is scheduled for 8 a.m. Thursday in Minneapolis as the lockout grinds into a third month with negotiations stalled and players and owners clawing for leverage via lawsuits.

Doty ruled March 1 the NFL violated the expired labor agreement by renegotiating television contracts to allow team owners to tap $4 billion during a lockout even if no games are played in 2011. Overturning a special master's initial ruling, Doty determined the NFL breached its contract with the since-dissolved NFL Players Association by accepting below-market deals that produced less revenue to share with players. "The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players," Doty wrote in his 28-page decision.

At issue is whether the players are entitled to an injunction that would place the $4 billion into escrow until the lockout is resolved, plus compensatory and punitive damages for the league's violations beyond what Burbank awarded.

A protective order required lawyers on both sides to redact specific dollar figures in their court filings although it is believed the players are seeking about $1 billion in damages. According to the NFLPA, the league's actions were "deliberate, contemplated and willful and sought to seek an unconscionable advantage" over the players during collective bargaining.

Doty has broad discretion and his decision is pivotal because it could swing momentum in the clash if owners are forced to pay for trying to spend somebody else's $4 billion to finance a prolonged work stoppage.

link

 

[Insomniac]

I appreciate this post. It is the grayness of the law which makes me call it inadequate. I don't blame the players (or the people who support them) one bit for using those laws to their maximum advantage. Although I fell strongly that pro sports need and deserve a more complete and well-defined trust exemption, it isn't personal. IN the end, you're correct in that what we all want is competitive football!

If you don't blame the players for using the law to their maximum advantage, there's no way you'd blame the owners pushing the envelope of an anti-trust exemption. If you gave them a total exemption they could set a maximum salary of $500 K and completely eliminate all types of free agency. Even if they had free agency they could require 10 years before the player gets a chance to test the market. There's no doubt they'd push their advantage as far as they could.So what rights and limitations (if any) are you giving NFL owners?

Players would still have the power of the strike. YOur hypothetical simply wouldn't occur. Owners making tens ot hundreds of millions in profits aren't going to allow their golden goose to be killed...the players would still get paid extrememly well, and they'd be far from powerless. Just ask the MLB players.

I guess that means you favor a unlimited anti-trust exemption for the owners. BTW throughout most of this you've backed the owners poor mouthing but here you agree they make "tens to hundreds of millions in profits". Every player strike by the NFLPA has been a disaster for the players. Collective bargaining has never made significant gains for pro football players. The only times they made progress was when there was a competing league or when they won in court. In pro sports the right to lockout is much more powerful than a strike.You mention the MLBPA as winning strikes. It's not really true. The only way the players got free agency is through a legal decision. If you give the owners a complete anti-trust exemption they'll just lock the players out until they give the owners everything they want. They could bring back the Rozelle rule, (did you ever hear of it?) cut the salary cap in half - with absolutely no guaranteed money allowed in any contract. If they lose a season or two it wouldn't matter, the union would eventually throw in the towel and the owners would take so much money back from the players they'd make up any losses in a couple of years - and that's not even counting the enormous increase in team values they'd realize from crushing the players union. I suppose they'd be limited in what they could demand by the threat of a competing league but the anti-trust exemption would also allow them to engage in anti-competitive behavior against any potential competitors. OTOH there's virtually no chance Congress ever gives the owners the exemption you favor.

 

[Insomniac]

It looks like many of you in this thread have done your homework on the labor issue. To me, I really don't care whose fault it is ( both side have some egg on their face). What I am interested in is what, other than players losing game checks, will be the catalyst for a new CBA. I really think the owners will prevail with the lockout appeal. If so, come July 1st or so, neither side has superior leverage. As we roll into September, the owners have leverage. If the owners prevail in the 8th circuit, I just see missed games. I know most people say we will play a full season ( if you believe polls). I believe that absent a lockout.What am I missing?

If the owners win the appeal the most likely result is that there will be no season.

 

[Catbird]

If the owners win the appeal the most likely result is that there will be no season.

This is the least accurate and most mis-leading comment I have read yet in a long and contentious thread.

I agree that it would give the owners the strong upper hand - although they would still face potentially losing on the merits of the jurisdictional question before the season starts and the much worse 'no lockout' bargaining stance that could go with it. They would like to strike a deal while holding that upper hand and before the season is truly endangered - I think that has been their strategy from the start.

The season would then be lost only if the players agreed to abandon the season rather than accept the best deal the owners would put forward. I seriously doubt the players would make any such stand. I don't think they care much about whether a rookie cap goes in (and most probably support it if some of the savings goes to additional team salcap - and thus potentially to them). Or about 18 games if the owners push it and players get paid for them.) So if they have to take a 10% or so pay hit from a lowered team salary cap and agree to 6 years on restricted free agency in order to get back to pay checks and playing (where the alternative is no paychecks for a year and starting over in the same situation next summer) ... I see little chance they give up the season. I can't imagine they hold together for missing a third paycheck. And I think the owners would take that kind of deal rather than risk losing the jurisdictional question and thus nearly all of their advantage.

Not sure we don't lose a game or two almost no matter what happens in the courts because both sides don't want to compromise no matter who momentarily holds the cards, and it will take a couple of weeks to prepare physically to play once the do agree (and a season extension might still get a full season played on a modofied calendar). But I would be really be surprised if its any more than three weeks late starting.

 

[jbobbett]

Not sure we don't lose a game or two almost no matter what happens in the courts because both sides don't want to compromise no matter who momentarily holds the cards, and it will take a couple of weeks to prepare physically to play once the do agree (and a season extension might still get a full season played on a modofied calendar). But I would be really be surprised if its any more than three weeks late starting.

If the players win in court I don't think games will be lost since there will be no lockout or strike. Most people think the season would be played under rules similar to 2010. Those rules may or may not survive anti-trust challenge as discussed elsewhere on this thread. If the two sides can't agree on a deal during this season then we will see the eggs start to get "scrambled" next year as the draft, free agenecy rules, salary cap, roster size, etc, all get challenged and fall to anti-trust challenges.

 

[renesauz]

I guess that means you favor a unlimited anti-trust exemption for the owners. BTW throughout most of this you've backed the owners poor mouthing but here you agree they make "tens to hundreds of millions in profits". Every player strike by the NFLPA has been a disaster for the players. Collective bargaining has never made significant gains for pro football players. The only times they made progress was when there was a competing league or when they won in court. In pro sports the right to lockout is much more powerful than a strike.You mention the MLBPA as winning strikes. It's not really true. The only way the players got free agency is through a legal decision. If you give the owners a complete anti-trust exemption they'll just lock the players out until they give the owners everything they want. They could bring back the Rozelle rule, (did you ever hear of it?) cut the salary cap in half - with absolutely no guaranteed money allowed in any contract. If they lose a season or two it wouldn't matter, the union would eventually throw in the towel and the owners would take so much money back from the players they'd make up any losses in a couple of years - and that's not even counting the enormous increase in team values they'd realize from crushing the players union. I suppose they'd be limited in what they could demand by the threat of a competing league but the anti-trust exemption would also allow them to engage in anti-competitive behavior against any potential competitors. OTOH there's virtually no chance Congress ever gives the owners the exemption you favor.

I said IF THEY WERE making that kind of money. AT this point, I think we can agree that some teams are making great profits, while others are measuring their profits in millions instead of tens or hundreds of millions. My point was that as long as the owners need the players (which is obviously, always), the players will always have significant negotiating power.My point with MLB is that even with MLBs trust exemptions, MLB players regularly negotiate deals worth tens of millions...they are getting PAID. Baseball has no true salary cap, yet baseball still spends, as a group, only a bit over 50% of revenue on players.....or roughly what football has spent! I don't want the union crushed, and I don't feel like the NFL needs full trust exemptions...but they do need more than they have. The only thing I want removed from the players is the ability to certify/decertify at will as a negotiating tactic....that tactic is unreasonable and unfair. If sides aren't able to come to an agreement, an arbitrator WITH POWERS should be used. The NLRB should do its &%$^ job instead of sitting on the G-%%#^$ sidelines. If it won't, then congress absolutely should step in. This is a 9 BILLION dollar a year industry, with reliant industries equating to at least that much again. That's a lot of lost tax revenue. EVen non-football fans should want someone to make sure a deal gets either made, or made for them. FURTHER, the removal of players unions ability to decertify at will could easily be balanced by a significant limitation on how/when the owners could institute a lockout. While I can't place the two on the same level, I do understand the argument, and it has merit. A lockout should NOT be used a negotiating tool either.BTW....If it's proven the owners took less money to fund a war chest....I sincerely hope the players can quantify it and recoup the treble damages. I also believe that no-way no-how should the players accept a REAL pay cut without real proof, but they don't need any additional proof beyond whats obvious to all of us to know that the system by which pay and raises is determined needs an overhaul (IE: As long as owners have made real profits, theres no need to cut pay, but declining profits and changed economy do call for a new model, which might reasonably result in little to no raises for players for a few years.) If trust exemptions are granted, it is assumed that the government (or some appointed regulatory agency) would gain some direct oversight authority. Things like the Rozelle rule could not, and would not be allowed. Congress has intervened in businesses generating far less tax revenue and fewer jobs than pro sports. I find the argument that congress shouldn't or wouldn't intervene to be less than compelling. The nations tax coffers lose at least a billion dollars if a season is lost...that's worth intervention.This is not a "100% on owners side" type of deal. I don't think there are too many reasonable, knowledgeable folks who are 100% on either side on every issue. Being 100% against decert (and admittedly very angry about it) is not the same as being 100% against the players.

 

[fatness]

NFL players ask for $707M in damages in TV dispute

U.S. District Judge David Doty took the request under advisement after a two-hour hearing that included arguments from attorneys for the league and the players. Such an award could amount to a huge piece of leverage in the players' fight with the NFL over the next collective bargaining agreement.

Jeffrey Kessler, the lead attorney for the players, urged Doty to rule quickly because of the ongoing lockout. The players have argued the league can make it through the lockout in part because it illegally secured the $4 billion "war chest" by renegotiating TV contracts for 2011 that allows the league to get paid even if there are no games to televise.

Doty began the hearing by chiding both sides for their inability to reach an agreement and achieve labor peace to ensure a 2011 season. "I'll be honest with you. I didn't think we would have this hearing, and I'm a bit disappointed we are having it," Doty said.

None of the team owners or high-ranking league officials attended the hearing. NFL players Ben Leber, Chester Pitts and Steve Smith were among those accompanying the lawyers on their side.

 

[fatness]

Tuesday, the Miami Dolphins became the latest NFL team to slash employee salaries, citing slow ticket sales stemming from the lingering lockout as the reason for the cuts.

The Dolphins aren't alone in this. They're just one of 12 NFL teams who have publicly placed misdirected blame on all the wrong people — there are probably others who have taken the same steps behind closed doors — passing off the league's problems to people who can't defend themselves so that the richest of the rich continue to live the good life.

In 1959, Wilson forked over a $25,000 franchise fee to found the Bills. In 2010, Forbes valued Wilson's Bills at $799 million. And despite going just 6-10 and watching the value of his ineptly-run team drop 12 percent in 2009, Wilson still pocketed a cool $28.2 million profit.

The Tampa Bay Bucs went 3-13 in 2009 while their owner, Malcolm Glazer — whose $192 million investment in 1995 is now worth $1 billion — turned the fourth-highest profit in the league at $56.5 million.

Because while the Rams floundered, the money kept flowing in — lots of it. Owners Stan Kroenke and Chip Rosenbloom had made a profit of $29 million when the 2009 season was all said and done, despite their team having the fourth-lowest attendance in the league.

The Redskins went 4-12 in 2009 while their owner, Dan Snyder, made $103.7 million. That point-seven, by the way, is $700,000 — or about 25 administrative assistants.

link

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Tuesday, the Miami Dolphins became the latest NFL team to slash employee salaries, citing slow ticket sales stemming from the lingering lockout as the reason for the cuts.

The Dolphins aren't alone in this. They're just one of 12 NFL teams who have publicly placed misdirected blame on all the wrong people — there are probably others who have taken the same steps behind closed doors — passing off the league's problems to people who can't defend themselves so that the richest of the rich continue to live the good life.

In 1959, Wilson forked over a $25,000 franchise fee to found the Bills. In 2010, Forbes valued Wilson's Bills at $799 million. And despite going just 6-10 and watching the value of his ineptly-run team drop 12 percent in 2009, Wilson still pocketed a cool $28.2 million profit.

The Tampa Bay Bucs went 3-13 in 2009 while their owner, Malcolm Glazer — whose $192 million investment in 1995 is now worth $1 billion — turned the fourth-highest profit in the league at $56.5 million.

Because while the Rams floundered, the money kept flowing in — lots of it. Owners Stan Kroenke and Chip Rosenbloom had made a profit of $29 million when the 2009 season was all said and done, despite their team having the fourth-lowest attendance in the league.

The Redskins went 4-12 in 2009 while their owner, Dan Snyder, made $103.7 million. That point-seven, by the way, is $700,000 — or about 25 administrative assistants.

link

Not enough!!!!We are getting a raw deal!!!

Screw the owners and the players I say. With each and every passing day my distain for both sides grow

 

[Dexter Manley]

Tuesday, the Miami Dolphins became the latest NFL team to slash employee salaries, citing slow ticket sales stemming from the lingering lockout as the reason for the cuts.

The Dolphins aren't alone in this. They're just one of 12 NFL teams who have publicly placed misdirected blame on all the wrong people — there are probably others who have taken the same steps behind closed doors — passing off the league's problems to people who can't defend themselves so that the richest of the rich continue to live the good life.

In 1959, Wilson forked over a $25,000 franchise fee to found the Bills. In 2010, Forbes valued Wilson's Bills at $799 million. And despite going just 6-10 and watching the value of his ineptly-run team drop 12 percent in 2009, Wilson still pocketed a cool $28.2 million profit.

The Tampa Bay Bucs went 3-13 in 2009 while their owner, Malcolm Glazer — whose $192 million investment in 1995 is now worth $1 billion — turned the fourth-highest profit in the league at $56.5 million.

Because while the Rams floundered, the money kept flowing in — lots of it. Owners Stan Kroenke and Chip Rosenbloom had made a profit of $29 million when the 2009 season was all said and done, despite their team having the fourth-lowest attendance in the league.

The Redskins went 4-12 in 2009 while their owner, Dan Snyder, made $103.7 million. That point-seven, by the way, is $700,000 — or about 25 administrative assistants.

link

I'll play devil's advocate here. If these #'s are correct, Wilson lost his ### in 2009. Sure he "pocketed a cool 28.2 million dollar profit," but he lost around 100 million on the total value of his franchise. So basically, he lost about 75 million net on his investment during the 2009 season.The value of the Bucs has grown on average over 11% per year since the Glazers bought the franchise. They made a profit of 5.65% of the value of the franchise in 2009. That seems average at best, for the 2009 season.

The Redskins are the second most valuable team in the league, last time I checked. Making a profit of 103.7 million doesn't seem outrageous.

 

[JFurby]

Tuesday, the Miami Dolphins became the latest NFL team to slash employee salaries, citing slow ticket sales stemming from the lingering lockout as the reason for the cuts.

The Dolphins aren't alone in this. They're just one of 12 NFL teams who have publicly placed misdirected blame on all the wrong people — there are probably others who have taken the same steps behind closed doors — passing off the league's problems to people who can't defend themselves so that the richest of the rich continue to live the good life.

In 1959, Wilson forked over a $25,000 franchise fee to found the Bills. In 2010, Forbes valued Wilson's Bills at $799 million. And despite going just 6-10 and watching the value of his ineptly-run team drop 12 percent in 2009, Wilson still pocketed a cool $28.2 million profit.

The Tampa Bay Bucs went 3-13 in 2009 while their owner, Malcolm Glazer — whose $192 million investment in 1995 is now worth $1 billion — turned the fourth-highest profit in the league at $56.5 million.

Because while the Rams floundered, the money kept flowing in — lots of it. Owners Stan Kroenke and Chip Rosenbloom had made a profit of $29 million when the 2009 season was all said and done, despite their team having the fourth-lowest attendance in the league.

The Redskins went 4-12 in 2009 while their owner, Dan Snyder, made $103.7 million. That point-seven, by the way, is $700,000 — or about 25 administrative assistants.

link

I agree that the Dolphins are blaming their poor ticket sales on the labor situation when the real culprit is a decade of poor performance on the field and a stadium atmosphere that is an embarrassing circus on game days now. It is a shame that some interesting facts were drowned out in a piece littered with pathetically biased cliche's typically used for class warfare.

 

[cobalt_27]

It looks like many of you in this thread have done your homework on the labor issue. To me, I really don't care whose fault it is ( both side have some egg on their face). What I am interested in is what, other than players losing game checks, will be the catalyst for a new CBA. I really think the owners will prevail with the lockout appeal. If so, come July 1st or so, neither side has superior leverage. As we roll into September, the owners have leverage. If the owners prevail in the 8th circuit, I just see missed games. I know most people say we will play a full season ( if you believe polls). I believe that absent a lockout.What am I missing?

If the owners win the appeal the most likely result is that there will be no season.

Meh. I wouldn't get too worked up over the owners winning on appeal. I really doubt the players are so pigheaded, unreasonable, that they'll forego paychecks for a year. They'll negotiate the owners up to near the terms of the 2006 extension (but not quite that sweet), and the owners won't be stupid enough to pass that up.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It looks like many of you in this thread have done your homework on the labor issue. To me, I really don't care whose fault it is ( both side have some egg on their face). What I am interested in is what, other than players losing game checks, will be the catalyst for a new CBA. I really think the owners will prevail with the lockout appeal. If so, come July 1st or so, neither side has superior leverage. As we roll into September, the owners have leverage. If the owners prevail in the 8th circuit, I just see missed games. I know most people say we will play a full season ( if you believe polls). I believe that absent a lockout.What am I missing?

If the owners win the appeal the most likely result is that there will be no season.

Meh. I wouldn't get too worked up over the owners winning on appeal. I really doubt the players are so pigheaded, unreasonable, that they'll forego paychecks for a year. They'll negotiate the owners up to near the terms of the 2006 extension (but not quite that sweet), and the owners won't be stupid enough to pass that up.

Yeah. I don't get the statement "if the owners win the appeal, the most likely result will be no season"The owners want a season as much as the players. The owners winning the appeal promptly, in my opinion, is the best chance of getting back to a negotiated deal. If the players win, we may have football but its likely we have no CBA for awhile and legal wrangling will continue for a long time to come.Never been a big Judge Doty fan, but loved his comments.

 

[cobalt_27]

It looks like many of you in this thread have done your homework on the labor issue. To me, I really don't care whose fault it is ( both side have some egg on their face). What I am interested in is what, other than players losing game checks, will be the catalyst for a new CBA. I really think the owners will prevail with the lockout appeal. If so, come July 1st or so, neither side has superior leverage. As we roll into September, the owners have leverage. If the owners prevail in the 8th circuit, I just see missed games. I know most people say we will play a full season ( if you believe polls). I believe that absent a lockout.What am I missing?

If the owners win the appeal the most likely result is that there will be no season.

Meh. I wouldn't get too worked up over the owners winning on appeal. I really doubt the players are so pigheaded, unreasonable, that they'll forego paychecks for a year. They'll negotiate the owners up to near the terms of the 2006 extension (but not quite that sweet), and the owners won't be stupid enough to pass that up.

Yeah. I don't get the statement "if the owners win the appeal, the most likely result will be no season"The owners want a season as much as the players. The owners winning the appeal promptly, in my opinion, is the best chance of getting back to a negotiated deal. If the players win, we may have football but its likely we have no CBA for awhile and legal wrangling will continue for a long time to come.Never been a big Judge Doty fan, but loved his comments.

Thing is, we'll be back on this whole yo-yo thing sooner rather than later if they don't sit down and iron out a deal on their own. It's May. There's no press to get a deal done for either side right now. The players have to use the courts to gain leverage, and that's precisely what they're doing here. But, if they lose in the courts, then the only way to get a paycheck is to hammer out a deal that's reasonable for both sides. And, I think what the pro-labor folks here are missing the point on is that there is no $ amount or % that is objectively reasonable or not. It doesn't matter what the books say, they'll still fight for more money (and argue the owners should just run a better business if they want more money). They have to voluntarily agree to a middle point that both sides can live with, as opposed to the alternative of collecting nothing. That can only happen once this whole litigation nonsense ends. Until then, even if we lift the lockout, we'll have labor unrest. Sure, there may be football for the short term...but, the long-term health of the league necessitates that they get back to the bargaining table that the players walked away from.

 

[JFurby]

It looks like many of you in this thread have done your homework on the labor issue. To me, I really don't care whose fault it is ( both side have some egg on their face). What I am interested in is what, other than players losing game checks, will be the catalyst for a new CBA. I really think the owners will prevail with the lockout appeal. If so, come July 1st or so, neither side has superior leverage. As we roll into September, the owners have leverage. If the owners prevail in the 8th circuit, I just see missed games. I know most people say we will play a full season ( if you believe polls). I believe that absent a lockout.What am I missing?

If the owners win the appeal the most likely result is that there will be no season.

Meh. I wouldn't get too worked up over the owners winning on appeal. I really doubt the players are so pigheaded, unreasonable, that they'll forego paychecks for a year. They'll negotiate the owners up to near the terms of the 2006 extension (but not quite that sweet), and the owners won't be stupid enough to pass that up.

I bet this is where they are headed too. Both sides will probably end up agreeing to something that is near what the extension would have been anyways. The players can claim victory on keeping most of the current benefits. The owners would probably be content to break even with the extension terms at this point simply to have a new arbitrator listed in the CBA instead of Doty. The real winners in this scenario would be the lawyers.

 

[fatness]

From Deadspin: The Bizarre Cult Of Pro-Owner NFL Fanboys

NSFW langage.

It's like a group of people went directly to their computers after walking out of a screening of Atlas Shrugged.

Do you know how many NFL teams are owned by people who inherited their respective franchises? Eleven. ELEVEN. Over one third of all NFL teams belong to people who did nothing to deserve them except shoot out of the right uterus or #### the right spouse. Two more NFL teams are owned by scions of American industrial giants (the Lions and Jets). And somehow this makes them business geniuses who deserve to lock out their employees and rob the country of its favorite sport? Really? The same shrewd people who apparently screwed themselves into such an allegedly ####ty labor deal not but a few years ago? Is there ANY situation in which a billionaire can be ####### wrong, then? Or is their wealth simply an overriding character trait that trumps all flaws?

I love football. Football is pretty much what I live for, and it seems to me that only the players are interested in making football a reality this fall.

 

[cobalt_27]

From Deadspin: The Bizarre Cult Of Pro-Owner NFL Fanboys

NSFW langage.

It's like a group of people went directly to their computers after walking out of a screening of Atlas Shrugged.

Do you know how many NFL teams are owned by people who inherited their respective franchises? Eleven. ELEVEN. Over one third of all NFL teams belong to people who did nothing to deserve them except shoot out of the right uterus or #### the right spouse. Two more NFL teams are owned by scions of American industrial giants (the Lions and Jets). And somehow this makes them business geniuses who deserve to lock out their employees and rob the country of its favorite sport? Really? The same shrewd people who apparently screwed themselves into such an allegedly ####ty labor deal not but a few years ago? Is there ANY situation in which a billionaire can be ####### wrong, then? Or is their wealth simply an overriding character trait that trumps all flaws?

I love football. Football is pretty much what I live for, and it seems to me that only the players are interested in making football a reality this fall.

Love deadspin, but that's about as an accurate as it can get. I really like the part about the inheritance. Hhas absolutely no relevance whatsoever. More noise.