Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[roarlions]

But is that part of the appeal of having the NLRB handle the issue, the fact that it would be a protracted process? Clearly that puts the pressure on the players more than the owners to negotiate a settlement, simply because the process would take so long. Is that also at least part of the reason the owners prefer the NLRB over the courts?

It's the process that allows the owner's traditional labor negotiating tool, a lockout, to work. But you should consider whether that's by design. The one thing that nobody disputes in the briefing is that if the NFL had declared an impasse and unilaterally instituted its preferred rules for the 2011/2012 season, then the NFLPA would have a right to strike. And the owners would have had no recourse to prevent that strike, even if they felt that the NFLPA were acting in bad faith (let's say the NFLPA refused to budge from a demand of 90% of revenues). The courts wouldn't have jurisdicition to enjoin the strike under the Norris-Laguardia Act. So the question is whether the law compels (or if its ambiguous, policy compels) lockouts to be treated differently than strikes. Obviously, 4 judges have split completely evenly on the question.

I think that helps to at least partially answer my next question, which was why are labor laws preferred to anti-trust laws?

 

[Cripster]

But is that part of the appeal of having the NLRB handle the issue, the fact that it would be a protracted process? Clearly that puts the pressure on the players more than the owners to negotiate a settlement, simply because the process would take so long. Is that also at least part of the reason the owners prefer the NLRB over the courts?

It's the process that allows the owner's traditional labor negotiating tool, a lockout, to work. But you should consider whether that's by design. The one thing that nobody disputes in the briefing is that if the NFL had declared an impasse and unilaterally instituted its preferred rules for the 2011/2012 season, then the NFLPA would have a right to strike. And the owners would have had no recourse to prevent that strike, even if they felt that the NFLPA were acting in bad faith (let's say the NFLPA refused to budge from a demand of 90% of revenues). The courts wouldn't have jurisdicition to enjoin the strike under the Norris-Laguardia Act. So the question is whether the law compels (or if its ambiguous, policy compels) lockouts to be treated differently than strikes. Obviously, 4 judges have split completely evenly on the question.

I think this is the information of relevance regardless of whose side your on. The NFL lockout will continue as I feel they will win the June 3rd appeal. Assuming that ruling comes down June 30th , I understand the players can appeal to the full court. However, the full court consists of a majority of Republican appointees I think ( don't know for sure). I am not suggestioning this is political, but its seems that way to me. The NLRB is a slow process. I read February 2012 as the date this issue gets attention. Maybe its earlier. Point is, the players are going to get backed into a corner if they lose the appeal. Sure they can hold out and hope to leverage the anti-trust suit. But giving up game checks hoping to hit the litigation jackpot is a big risk. Even if they win the TV case, it will be appealed and tied up in court for months. What concerns me is this is all De Smith knows ( jackpot justice). He may take this action unless the players revolt.

 

[David Dodds]

Let's assume for a minute that a new CBA doesn't happen.

Won't the owners just implement their rules for the 2011 season and declare the lockout over? And if so, isn't this lockout just wasting everyone's time here?

 

[renesauz]

I think you're overestimating how many MORE fans are available in the big market cities. The NFL is EXTREMELY popular now. I don't think turning the Cowboys and Redskins into annual SUper Bowl contenders is really going to add that many fans in those markets. The challenges the NFL faces in gaining overseas popularity have little to do with parity or established powerhouse teams to root for. They have more to do with the amazingly complex game which is very difficult to pick up and understand. We get it because our fathers watched it and explained it. There are also well established sports leagues of other natures in those other countries. The world league failed not because it couldn't gain fans, but because it couldn't gain fans quickly enough to satisfy the NFL. It would take a couple of decades of world league football to have any hope to compete with the well-established soccer leagues there.And no...I wouldn't lose ALL interest in the game. But instead of watching EVERY Eagles game, I would probably only watch when they had a chance...which wouldn't be often in the same division as NY, Dallas, and Washington. I grew up an avid Phillies fan...loved baseball. Once I got old enough to understand the economics of baseball, and looked a little bit closer, that interest waned. Now...I might watch 4 or 5 games a year and catch a handful of minor league games locally. Not because I don't love the game, but because I don't believe in the economics, even if my childhood favorite is currently looking pretty darn good. I honestly believe that if baseball (a sport with more natural parity) had the economic parity football does, it would be MORE successful than it is. I know I'd pay more attention to it. I doubt the Yankees would lose many fans if they only won once a decade instead of every third year.The parity burden of proof is not on me, or those who swear they need parity (or at least the illusion of it) to love the game. It's on you and the others who believe it's NOT important to prove it's not important. If there's tens or hundreds of thousands of fans who swear they will give up the game if it loses parity, it's on you to prove the NFL will GAIN tens or hundreds of thousands of fans elsewhere by creating perrenially elite teams. I don't know how you can do so.

i cant prove anything. i can only point to analogous examples, most comparable being euro soccer and mlb and nba and ncaa sports. if you dismiss those examples, then i dont think i am elegant and persuasive enough to convince you otherwise. personally, i am fan of small town teams, and for selfish reasons i would prefer parity structures remained. but i realize that scenario is at odds with fair (ie free market) player compensation and maximizing leaguewide interest and profits. i am amused by ppl who argue both sides.

I understand your point, I really do. A big part of the problem is that those other sports aren't truly analogous to football. Baseball, by it's very nature, lends itself to parity. Bad teams can and do beat good teams often. The best teams, even when obviously stacked and healthy, still only win about 65-70% of the time....not because they aren't superior, but because of the nature of the game itself (GREAT hitters only reach base safely 30% of the time, and BAD hitters 25%, with those numbers, statistics shows that the lesser teams will win often). Soccer is a game where a blowout is a 2-0 score. At the top levels, even a stacked team against a bottomfeeder might only have 5 excellant chances at a goal...mi#### two, get a couple great saves by a goalie, and they're limited to one goal. Similar to baseball, statistically the bottom feeder team will still get one or two good chances to score. Two great shots...just two, and they win.Football has a structure to it which does NOT lend itself to upsets. UNlike soccer, there is no constant ebb and flow, unlike baseball the statistic of a couple straight hits (positive plays) does not equal points...it normally takes many of them. Just look at college football. Top teams don't beat bottom teams...they MASSACRE them. 55-3 type scores, unlike baseballs 5-2 or soccers 3-1 (where fans of the losing team can still hold the illusion of hope late in the game.) Yeah...the stadiums sell out, but the games aren't shown on TV. When they are, they don't rate well.Parity is not strictly necessary for baseball to remain at least somewhat interesting in a single game. Nor is it strictly necessary in soccer, although upsets are tougher. Football is a game where parity is absolutely crucial to maintaining success. To be fair, there are things done in the name of parity that may not have the suggested impact (the draft being one of them), and it is true that getting rid of the RFA system altogether would probably not upset the balance of parity so badly that it resulted in college football results. It's not a hard line in the dirt...there is room for negotiation.

 

[Andrew Garda]

This thread is fascinating. A couple of very intelligent well thought out discussions followed by post after post of partisan horse crap. It's the FFA in the Shark Pool. I love it.

Lots of both of the following....

 

[renesauz]

Owners will just sit on the sidelines; we all know they don't need the games as much as the players. They will be getting 4 billion from the TV Contract. Plus they have there other revenue streams intact.What do the players have. When those game checks don't arrive and they can't pay the mortgage, child support and the entourage they will start crumbling like a house of cards. There are a lot more average players in the NFL than the top earners.I see the owners getting that extra billion off the TV contract. I have a feeling the players will also agree to a slotted rookie wage scale like the NBA making the days of the 65 million dollar signing bonus a thing of the past. Also owners will want there 1st - 3rd round picks locked in for 5 years. Owners will not budge on the signing bonus recoup clause due to off field actions and on field performance. If your a young kid you may have to really consider being a football player. Imagine being the 1st overall pick and only earning 11 million dollars and your locked in for 5 years. You may not even have the chance to negotiate a big money contract if you suffer a serious injury during that 5 year span.

TV money is in escrow...they aren't getting it now. What are the "other streams". Tciket sales? nope. Jersey sales? I doubt much...who's buying now?"Other streams" would be other businesses. Players are free to pursue other business streams too...and some do that (advertising!) Owners might be better equipped to survive a lost season, but in that scenario, the owners lose just as much financially as the players do. To believe otherwise is ridiculous. (EVen if they got to use the TV money...IT WAS STILL A LOAN>>>NOT FREE MONEY)ETA: SOmething else thats been buggin me: If someone screws up at work, and makes a mistake that hurts you. Say....screws up your leg real bad. You're still young, but summer softball leagues are agone now, as well as long hikes in the hills. What's your compensation? How much do you win in a lawsuit? 30 million? 10 million? ONE million?Nope....chances are it's in the 200-300k area...MAYBE. SO why the %%#^&$*&% do people keep talking about the physical risk the players take? The are compensated for the RESULT of a serious injury BEFORE the even recieve the injury. It's not a viable argument.

 

[scoobygang]

I think that helps to at least partially answer my next question, which was why are labor laws preferred to anti-trust laws?

To the extent that two statutes can be interpreted so that they don't contradict each other, courts like to do that. You can interpret the Norris-Laguardia Act in such a way that it won't contradict the Sherman Act. One reading would say that a lockout of a decertified union is an antitrust violation, subject to treble damages, yet nevertheless that district courts lack the jurisdicition to order injunctive relief to end that lockout.As for the non-statutory labor exemption to the Sherman Act in general (which we really haven't even gotten to a point of challenging yet), that's judicial doctrine, but I think it's a sensible policy decision. Without the labor exemption, workers couldn't strike. They couldn't bargain collectively. All of that stuff would be outlawed by the Sherman Act. I personally think that collective bargaining is a more effective tool for labor than antitrust suits. Which is not to say that antitrust suits should always be precluded. Obviously, the NFL can't continue to lockout workers or collude on conditions of employment if no union has existed for years. The question is whether a union has the power to convert a labor dispute into a antitrust action unilaterally and immediately (not necessarily whether they should have the power, but whether they do under the law). Again, that's where the judges are split.

 

[renesauz]

Assuming the players lose again when the same 3 judges rule on the lock-out in June, what kind of timeline is there for further appeals, either to the full panel of judges or to the Supreme Court? I would guess either of those would be pretty lengthy processes.To those who believe this type of dispute should be resolved by the NLRB, do you really believe that a process that could take many months, possibly a year, is the best way for this to be handled?

Nope, it isn't....but why does the NLRB take years? Never understood that.

 

[renesauz]

Let's assume for a minute that a new CBA doesn't happen.Won't the owners just implement their rules for the 2011 season and declare the lockout over? And if so, isn't this lockout just wasting everyone's time here?

Can't see it. If they voluntarily lift the lockout, they'd never be able to put it in place again. This lockout came out of a legit labor dispute....the next one wouldn't. ALl they would do in that scenario is hand the leverage back to the players.I strongly suspect the players will come back to the table and negotiate in better faith...but I'm not so certain it will happen quickly enough to save the whole season.

 

[scoobygang]

Let's assume for a minute that a new CBA doesn't happen.Won't the owners just implement their rules for the 2011 season and declare the lockout over? And if so, isn't this lockout just wasting everyone's time here?

I think it would be very dangerous to act as if they've declared an impasse when there is no union existing.

 

[roarlions]

ETA: SOmething else thats been buggin me: If someone screws up at work, and makes a mistake that hurts you. Say....screws up your leg real bad. You're still young, but summer softball leagues are agone now, as well as long hikes in the hills. What's your compensation? How much do you win in a lawsuit? 30 million? 10 million? ONE million?Nope....chances are it's in the 200-300k area...MAYBE. SO why the %%#^&$*&% do people keep talking about the physical risk the players take? The are compensated for the RESULT of a serious injury BEFORE the even recieve the injury. It's not a viable argument.

I don't think that comparing an injury that limits your recreational activities but not your ability to perform your job to an injury that is considered career-threatening or career-ending is a very good comparison. Sure players can enter other fields of employment after an injury, but those fields aren't going to offer compensation that comes close to what they earn in the NFL. Someone who is injured on the job and loses their ability to earn a living will receive a lot more money than a few hundred thousand dollars.

 

[cobalt_27]

Let's assume for a minute that a new CBA doesn't happen.Won't the owners just implement their rules for the 2011 season and declare the lockout over? And if so, isn't this lockout just wasting everyone's time here?

That seems totally within their discretion. Obviously, for negotiating purposes, they have to position this lockout as though it will go on into perpetuity. Otherwise, it has no bite. And, I'll be the first one here lambasting the owners if they let this happen.The owners have a reasonable request to set aside some money for expenses. One billion may not be enough; $2b may be excessive. I don't know and can't know the answer to that question. The players have a very reasonable request that their future earnings be tied to revenues/growth. I want that for them, too. There has to be a way these two sides can put aside the posturing and work out an arrangement so that the owners get enough guaranteed money that they think they'll need to operate business over the next 5-10 years and grow the sport, while the players also are provided with some security and the opportunity for even more growth when the going gets good, as well.

 

[David Dodds]

Let's assume for a minute that a new CBA doesn't happen.Won't the owners just implement their rules for the 2011 season and declare the lockout over? And if so, isn't this lockout just wasting everyone's time here?

I think it would be very dangerous to act as if they've declared an impasse when there is no union existing.

but that's my question. There is no union. So assuming the players will all of a sudden forego their anti-trust claims, and reforge a union and play a long-term deal under an owner-proposed plan could very well be a serious longshot.So I am asking under that scenario with the players not budging, what happens? The lockout wouldn't last forever right? At some point the owners have to acknowledge that the union is gone and need to implement their own rules. What would be considered sufficient time? One lost season? Half of a lost season?

 

[dparker713]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

Expenses aren't irrelevant.In a competitive market, business owners make a normal return on their investment. If they make more than that, others enter the market and bid up labor and other costs and/or reduce prices. (If they make less than that, some will close up shop and move into other industries instead.)

That's how the NFL market for labor would work in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Teams would bid away talent from each other until their profits were reduced to a normal level.

But with a CBA and a salary cap, that kind of market pressure doesn't exist. There's no natural mechanism that sets player salaries at a level that keeps owners in the range of normal profits. On the contrary, owners can obtain supernormal profits by artificially limiting salaries.

But why would the players agree to that? They wouldn't. They're entitled to antitrust protection against it. In order to give up that antitrust protection, they need to satisfy themselves that they're not being taken advantage of — that the owners are not keeping supernormal profits by artificially suppressing wages. The only way to determine that is to look at the profits they're making. Revenues minus expenses. They are not irrelevant.

(With a CBA, the owners and players should both make more than they otherwise would, which is why both sides will agree to it. So the owners should make more than a normal return on investment. How much more is a question to be negotiated. But it can't be negotiated blindly; the players need financial info in order to negotiate competently. They don't need as much info as they're asking for; but they need enough to negotiate competently.)

The NFL labor market just won't function like that. The fixed revenue from the TV deals would greatly alter the incentives for individual teams within the labor market. If the Bills make 100 mil without selling a single ticket, why would they even bother to try to be competitive? Stink up the joint with 20 million in total expenses, and pocket the rest. Meanwhile, Jerry Jones, Mara/Tisch, Woody Johnson, Dan Snyder and only a few others will compete for the best talent. Sure, their profit margins might normalize in this system, but smaller markets would have little incentive to reduce profit for the exceedingly small chance at winning.

 

[dparker713]

I think you're overestimating how many MORE fans are available in the big market cities. The NFL is EXTREMELY popular now. I don't think turning the Cowboys and Redskins into annual SUper Bowl contenders is really going to add that many fans in those markets. The challenges the NFL faces in gaining overseas popularity have little to do with parity or established powerhouse teams to root for. They have more to do with the amazingly complex game which is very difficult to pick up and understand. We get it because our fathers watched it and explained it. There are also well established sports leagues of other natures in those other countries. The world league failed not because it couldn't gain fans, but because it couldn't gain fans quickly enough to satisfy the NFL. It would take a couple of decades of world league football to have any hope to compete with the well-established soccer leagues there.And no...I wouldn't lose ALL interest in the game. But instead of watching EVERY Eagles game, I would probably only watch when they had a chance...which wouldn't be often in the same division as NY, Dallas, and Washington. I grew up an avid Phillies fan...loved baseball. Once I got old enough to understand the economics of baseball, and looked a little bit closer, that interest waned. Now...I might watch 4 or 5 games a year and catch a handful of minor league games locally. Not because I don't love the game, but because I don't believe in the economics, even if my childhood favorite is currently looking pretty darn good. I honestly believe that if baseball (a sport with more natural parity) had the economic parity football does, it would be MORE successful than it is. I know I'd pay more attention to it. I doubt the Yankees would lose many fans if they only won once a decade instead of every third year.The parity burden of proof is not on me, or those who swear they need parity (or at least the illusion of it) to love the game. It's on you and the others who believe it's NOT important to prove it's not important. If there's tens or hundreds of thousands of fans who swear they will give up the game if it loses parity, it's on you to prove the NFL will GAIN tens or hundreds of thousands of fans elsewhere by creating perrenially elite teams. I don't know how you can do so.

i cant prove anything. i can only point to analogous examples, most comparable being euro soccer and mlb and nba and ncaa sports. if you dismiss those examples, then i dont think i am elegant and persuasive enough to convince you otherwise. personally, i am fan of small town teams, and for selfish reasons i would prefer parity structures remained. but i realize that scenario is at odds with fair (ie free market) player compensation and maximizing leaguewide interest and profits. i am amused by ppl who argue both sides.

I understand your point, I really do. A big part of the problem is that those other sports aren't truly analogous to football. Baseball, by it's very nature, lends itself to parity. Bad teams can and do beat good teams often. The best teams, even when obviously stacked and healthy, still only win about 65-70% of the time....not because they aren't superior, but because of the nature of the game itself (GREAT hitters only reach base safely 30% of the time, and BAD hitters 25%, with those numbers, statistics shows that the lesser teams will win often). Soccer is a game where a blowout is a 2-0 score. At the top levels, even a stacked team against a bottomfeeder might only have 5 excellant chances at a goal...mi#### two, get a couple great saves by a goalie, and they're limited to one goal. Similar to baseball, statistically the bottom feeder team will still get one or two good chances to score. Two great shots...just two, and they win.Football has a structure to it which does NOT lend itself to upsets. UNlike soccer, there is no constant ebb and flow, unlike baseball the statistic of a couple straight hits (positive plays) does not equal points...it normally takes many of them. Just look at college football. Top teams don't beat bottom teams...they MASSACRE them. 55-3 type scores, unlike baseballs 5-2 or soccers 3-1 (where fans of the losing team can still hold the illusion of hope late in the game.) Yeah...the stadiums sell out, but the games aren't shown on TV. When they are, they don't rate well.Parity is not strictly necessary for baseball to remain at least somewhat interesting in a single game. Nor is it strictly necessary in soccer, although upsets are tougher. Football is a game where parity is absolutely crucial to maintaining success. To be fair, there are things done in the name of parity that may not have the suggested impact (the draft being one of them), and it is true that getting rid of the RFA system altogether would probably not upset the balance of parity so badly that it resulted in college football results. It's not a hard line in the dirt...there is room for negotiation.

There are plenty of problems with this post, but you're greatly underselling how dominant soccer teams can be. Man U crushes other teams in the Premier League with their second team. Same is true of Real Madrid. Barca is going to finish the season with 42-5-11 record this season with 2 games to play. Out of those 60 matches, your best players maybe play 45. Also, in league play, Barca scores about 2.5 goals per game and gives up about 0.5 per game. An overmatched soccer team is much more likely to earn a draw, especially at home, but outright upsets in these situations are rare.

 

[GridironMenace]

Hey David Dodds. You and Joe Bryant run FBG, yes? With all due respect I've been reading your commentary with Jason Wood and I couldn't disagree with you more. Let's reverse the roles for a second. The cost for a subscription used to be $24.95 (back in the day wasn't it $19.95 or $22.95?). It is now currently $27.95. I would like you and Joe to open your books and show me (and the rest of the members that keep you in business) why you feel like it is necessary to charge more for the same product. Why do you feel like you are entitled to more profits? All because you own/run the business it doesn't give you the right to ask your members to pay more money in order to line your pockets, does it? Oh and when one of your employees come to you for a raise and you say no, should your employees expect you to open your books in order to show them your bottom line?Sound familiar?- GM

I'm so sick of this type of thinking ... WE DON'T WORK FOR FBG!!! THEY PROVIDE A SERVICE, AND PLEASE STOP USING SMALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS Logic TO A MULTI-BILLION DOLLARS CO. There has been some excellent post discussing both side and I enjoying reading both party opinions. I have notice a couple of posters are siding with the owners because of jealously, like "how can the players playing a kids game making hundreds of thousands and for some millions demand to see the NFL Profits and Loss Reports?" "They should just take a deal and shut up"... They (players) are gifted and blessed with talent from above, and someone is making a profit off of them. They should come together and stop this pissing contest..

They are both privately held corporations. The principle remains the same. No employee has the right to demand the owner of the company open their books to prove anything. If you don't like it, then they can find a new job. Green Bay is not a owned by a private group of people. That is why the books to the Green Bay Packers is available for all to see. If the owners don't want to open their books, they don't have to.Look, here's the bottom line. The 8th circuit is going to rule in favor of the owners. I am 100% certain of this. When they do, D.Smith will finally be forced to actually negotiate with the owners. Thusfar, it has been very 1-sided. If D.Smith continues to play litigator instead of negotiator, then a deal will not happen. In lieu, of keeping players out of work D.Smith will feel pressure from the players to strike a deal. A deal will be worked out in mid-July. The season will start 2 weeks late, but a full season will be played. All will be happy, eventually.

 

[Da Guru]

NFL players taking out huge loans. This dispute will not lasat long. NFL players are famous for living way beyong their short lived means.

http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29394246

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No employee has the right to demand the owner of the company open their books to prove anything. If you don't like it, then they can find a new job. Green Bay is not a owned by a private group of people. That is why the books to the Green Bay Packers is available for all to see. If the owners don't want to open their books, they don't have to.

Right. And if the players don't want to agree to a salary cap, they don't have to. Both sides want stuff they're not entitled to. To get what they want (but are not entitled to), each side will have to give the other side something it wants (but is not entitled to). That's how negotiations work. The owners want a salary cap. The players want to see the books. And so the negotiations continue . . .

Look, here's the bottom line. The 8th circuit is going to rule in favor of the owners. I am 100% certain of this.

It looks that way to me as well — on the issue of the preliminary injunction. But there's a lot more to the lawsuit than the request for a preliminary injunction. Still the injunction is a big deal, and if the owners win, it does give them a lot more leverage than they would have otherwise had.I think the chances of negotiating a new CBA will significantly increase after the 8th Circuit rules on the preliminary injunction no matter which way it comes out. If the owners win, they'll have more leverage; and if the players win, they'll have more leverage; but in either case, some amount of uncertainty over the legal outcome will be resolved. One side versus the other having more leverage isn't what makes settlement hard. Uncertainty is what makes settlement hard. (Edit: Not uncertainty in itself, but disagreement over the likely outcome. And when uncertainty is reduced, disagreement over the likely outcome is reduced.)

 

[Andrew Garda]

One more time:

The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two.

THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.

A multibillion dollar entertainment industry /= a profitable website, a car company or an insurance company.

You couldn't run the league the way you run this site or any of the other examples above. Comparing the two is silly. You want to compare it to something? Talk the Film/TV industry and the studio system. You can argue your point from there - they don't open their books and their accounting looks about as shady as the owners.

Do they need to open their books? No, not really. Can the players just up and leave?

I don't know - how many professional football leagues are there?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

One more time:The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two. THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.

I agree. Because they are different, it makes sense for a different set of rules to apply. This is why congress needs to get off their duffs.

 

[scoobygang]

One more time:The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two. THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.A multibillion dollar entertainment industry /= a profitable website, a car company or an insurance company. You couldn't run the league the way you run this site or any of the other examples above. Comparing the two is silly. You want to compare it to something? Talk the Film/TV industry and the studio system. You can argue your point from there - they don't open their books and their accounting looks about as shady as the owners.Do they need to open their books? No, not really. Can the players just up and leave?I don't know - how many professional football leagues are there?

Courts don't just get to declare industries "different" and then exempt them from the law. There is nothing special about the NFL that exempts them from having to open their books in a labor negotiation. They don't have to open their books, but neither would FBGs, or your grocery store. It's not a requirement under the law. I assure you that the principles involved are the same because the law is the same.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

One more time:The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two. THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.A multibillion dollar entertainment industry /= a profitable website, a car company or an insurance company. You couldn't run the league the way you run this site or any of the other examples above. Comparing the two is silly. You want to compare it to something? Talk the Film/TV industry and the studio system. You can argue your point from there - they don't open their books and their accounting looks about as shady as the owners.Do they need to open their books? No, not really. Can the players just up and leave?I don't know - how many professional football leagues are there?

Courts don't just get to declare industries "different" and then exempt them from the law. There is nothing special about the NFL that exempts them from having to open their books in a labor negotiation. They don't have to open their books, but neither would FBGs, or your grocery store. It's not a requirement under the law. I assure you that the principles involved are the same because the law is the same.

I think he's suggesting that the players should be entitled to see the books because they are a more integral part of the business than the bagger at the local grocery store.

 

[scoobygang]

I think he's suggesting that the players should be entitled to see the books because they are a more integral part of the business than the bagger at the local grocery store.

The current situation already provides for that. In businesses where labor is relatively more important to the business, labor inherently has more negotiating power. The NFL assumes more economic risk by denying the NFLPA's demands than Safeway does by denying grocery bagger's demands. There's absolutely no need for a different legal rule or moral rule to provide for the distinction.

 

[Andrew Garda]

One more time:The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two. THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.A multibillion dollar entertainment industry /= a profitable website, a car company or an insurance company. You couldn't run the league the way you run this site or any of the other examples above. Comparing the two is silly. You want to compare it to something? Talk the Film/TV industry and the studio system. You can argue your point from there - they don't open their books and their accounting looks about as shady as the owners.Do they need to open their books? No, not really. Can the players just up and leave?I don't know - how many professional football leagues are there?

Courts don't just get to declare industries "different" and then exempt them from the law. There is nothing special about the NFL that exempts them from having to open their books in a labor negotiation. They don't have to open their books, but neither would FBGs, or your grocery store. It's not a requirement under the law. I assure you that the principles involved are the same because the law is the same.

I'm not talking about legal requirements. I'm talking about comparing two completely different industries and saying a = b. Trying to compare FBGs to the NFL is silly. BTW - if you read the rest of the post I said they (the owners) didn't have to open up their books. Nowhere did I say legally they were required to do anything.sidenote: re: different industries getting different rules: Isn't exempting industries from law what having anti-trust status or whatever the NFL and many other sports league have exactly that anyway?

 

[Andrew Garda]

I think he's suggesting that the players should be entitled to see the books because they are a more integral part of the business than the bagger at the local grocery store.

The current situation already provides for that. In businesses where labor is relatively more important to the business, labor inherently has more negotiating power. The NFL assumes more economic risk by denying the NFLPA's demands than Safeway does by denying grocery bagger's demands. There's absolutely no need for a different legal rule or moral rule to provide for the distinction.

You guys are reading waaaaaaaaaaay more into my post than intended.There was a comparison made between the NFL & FBGS. The comparison is ludicrous. If you want to compare an industry that generates millions on the strength of the personalities we watch vs the companies that put out the product, use the entertainment industry. They never open their books. They constantly complain they don't make money on movies that make hundreds of millions of dollars. Their product is successful more because of who is in it than who made it (ie, Will Smith vs a Time Warner/Warner Bros movie).Nobody can force anyone to open the books. But that's not what I was proposing.If you want my personal feeling, I think they backed themselves into a position where the players would hard line the request when they cut a sweetheart deal for TV money. But nobody can make them open the books.

 

[Da Guru]

One more time:The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two. THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.

I agree. Because they are different, it makes sense for a different set of rules to apply. This is why congress needs to get off their duffs.

Why?? The player pool is basically endless, just like the UAW factory worker pool would be endless. 99% of players would still be playing the game even if the max salary was 250K a year. And the NFL owners know this.They are still going to be paying great money, just want more control. As owners that is their right.

 

[Jason Wood]

One more time:The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two. THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.

I agree. Because they are different, it makes sense for a different set of rules to apply. This is why congress needs to get off their duffs.

Why?? The player pool is basically endless, just like the UAW factory worker pool would be endless. 99% of players would still be playing the game even if the max salary was 250K a year. And the NFL owners know this.They are still going to be paying great money, just want more control. As owners that is their right.

That's the thing I think people forget. This notion that players are ENTITLED to any particular piece of the pie simply isn't true, unless it's contractually negotiated. I always cringe whenever terms like "fairness" or "what they're due" get into conversations like this. This has NOTHING to do with what's fair, on either side. It has everything to do with what each side wants versus what they can get the other side to tolerate.

 

[Doug B]

Two big reasons that the owners reasonably balk at opening the books. The first has been covered, but I'm not sure the second one has:

1) All the owners would then know exactly what each of the other owners is doing, and opening themselves up to "reasonability" judgments on their expenses. Ultimately, as the dominos fall, this could screw up revenue sharing.

2) There can't conceivably be a realistic scenario in which the players would scrutinize the owners books and then conclude "You all were right -- you DO need that extra billion." IOW, the players could not possibly review the books in good faith -- they've got too much financial stake in what the books reveal.

 

[Andrew Garda]

That's the thing I think people forget. This notion that players are ENTITLED to any particular piece of the pie simply isn't true, unless it's contractually negotiated. I always cringe whenever terms like "fairness" or "what they're due" get into conversations like this. This has NOTHING to do with what's fair, on either side. It has everything to do with what each side wants versus what they can get the other side to tolerate.

Like Bob Sugar says;It ain't Show Friends - it's Show BUSINESS.Nobody is entitled to anything. Take what you can while you can. Which is why we are where we are today (meaning the NFL/NFLPA* not literally us here in the shark pool, though the thread wouldn't exist . :headexplode: )

 

[Doug B]

Why?? The player pool is basically endless, just like the UAW factory worker pool would be endless. 99% of players would still be playing the game even if the max salary was 250K a year. And the NFL owners know this.They are still going to be paying great money, just want more control. As owners that is their right.

I know there's a piece of the logic puzzle missing, but:Going by what you wrote, the owners should move post-haste to a scab league. When this happened in 1987, attendances were down, but fairly robust considering that all the stars were striking. Of course, in 2011, the TV money is tons bigger ... maybe some of the more deeply invested parties (networks, advertisers) would have some influence preventing a full-blown scab league.I wonder though ... say the NFL went scab right now and never looked back. The league would surely as popular in, say, 2016 as it was last year? Or at least close? Can the owner take the popularity of football for granted, and just throw out warm bodies? Might that work in the LONG run (5+ years)?So then ... what are the factors preventing owners from hiring scabs tomorrow? Anti-trust regulations, maybe, since there's still be no union to collectively bargain with. So no cap, and presumably no draft. And I guess down the road, some of the scabs would become the stars, and thus be able to command big sums in the no-salary-cap scab league.Trying to "logic" this out to see is a no-CBA scab league still (eventually) gets pricey for the teams and, ultimately, uncompetitive as Dallas, Washington, etc. buy up the best scabs.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Why?? The player pool is basically endless, just like the UAW factory worker pool would be endless. 99% of players would still be playing the game even if the max salary was 250K a year. And the NFL owners know this.They are still going to be paying great money, just want more control. As owners that is their right.

I know there's a piece of the logic puzzle missing, but:Going by what you wrote, the owners should move post-haste to a scab league. When this happened in 1987, attendances were down, but fairly robust considering that all the stars were striking. Of course, in 2011, the TV money is tons bigger ... maybe some of the more deeply invested parties (networks, advertisers) would have some influence preventing a full-blown scab league.I wonder though ... say the NFL went scab right now and never looked back. The league would surely as popular in, say, 2016 as it was last year? Or at least close? Can the owner take the popularity of football for granted, and just throw out warm bodies? Might that work in the LONG run (5+ years)?So then ... what are the factors preventing owners from hiring scabs tomorrow? Anti-trust regulations, maybe, since there's still be no union to collectively bargain with. So no cap, and presumably no draft. And I guess down the road, some of the scabs would become the stars, and thus be able to command big sums in the no-salary-cap scab league.Trying to "logic" this out to see is a no-CBA scab league still (eventually) gets pricey for the teams and, ultimately, uncompetitive as Dallas, Washington, etc. buy up the best scabs.

Regardless if they decide to go scab or not, isn't that their decision as owners of their business?

 

[CalBear]

I wonder though ... say the NFL went scab right now and never looked back. The league would surely as popular in, say, 2016 as it was last year? Or at least close? Can the owner take the popularity of football for granted, and just throw out warm bodies? Might that work in the LONG run (5+ years)?

Probably not, because the good players would still be out there. A new league featuring Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning would be a serious threat to an NFL featuring Jamarcus Russell and Matt Leinart.

 

[Jason Wood]

And there is absolutely truth to the idea that ownership is reluctant to open their books because of what each other would think, but the owners motivations really aren't at issue here, much to the players' chagrin.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I wonder though ... say the NFL went scab right now and never looked back. The league would surely as popular in, say, 2016 as it was last year? Or at least close? Can the owner take the popularity of football for granted, and just throw out warm bodies? Might that work in the LONG run (5+ years)?

Probably not, because the good players would still be out there. A new league featuring Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning would be a serious threat to an NFL featuring Jamarcus Russell and Matt Leinart.

IMO, it would take years to get near to the level they are at now (several new draft classes) and they would lose a tremendous amount of popularity in that time. Why overspend on a scab NFL ticket when I can pay half as much for the same (in some cases, better) play at the CFB level? And yeah, if Manning & company took up shop elsewhere, it would be a huge problem.And if the owners dumped the players - especially the big timers - I'd be willing to bet some millionaires with too much time and money on their hands would form a new league. That would be a problem.The repercussions for college players would be interesting - leave and play in the NFL or go to the new league and play with the better players?

 

[cobalt_27]

I suppose it's interesting to consider the possibilities of a new league and all. But, I'm surprised by the amount of discussion it's generated here. It's a fairy tale. It's just not happening.

 

[Doug B]

I suppose it's interesting to consider the possibilities of a new league and all. But, I'm surprised by the amount of discussion it's generated here. It's a fairy tale. It's just not happening.

This particular line of discussion is postulating whether or not the former NFLPA players could comprise the core of a new league that would compete against a hypothetical scab NFL. Not whether the players would form a new league in response to the current lockout.

 

[CalBear]

And if the owners dumped the players - especially the big timers - I'd be willing to bet some millionaires with too much time and money on their hands would form a new league. That would be a problem.The repercussions for college players would be interesting - leave and play in the NFL or go to the new league and play with the better players?

There have been two significant threats to the NFL's hegemony before. The first, the AFL, was founded by a group of rich guys, and by paying good salaries (for the time), immediately stole about half of the talent. By 1964 they had a good TV deal; within 10 years the AFL became at least as good as the NFL, resulting in the eventual merger. It's hard to imagine the same thing happening in the same way now; the new league would have to get up to at least 12-16 teams to be viable, and then it wouldn't be realistic to merge with the 32-team NFL.More recently, the USFL tried to compete more or less directly with the NFL. They had a few successes stealing top college prospects (notably Herschel Walker, Reggie White, and Doug Flutie), but didn't have as cohesive an ownership group, so when different franchises had different financial success, the losers were left holding the bag.For an alternate league to form today, it would take a dozen owners who could afford to lose millions for 3-4 years, and would be willing to work together to prop up struggling franchises in the early going. It would be a difficult task, but I think someone is likely to try it if the NFL tries to go with scab players for any length of time. The payoff if you take over pro football would be huge.

 

[roadkill1292]

I suppose it's interesting to consider the possibilities of a new league and all. But, I'm surprised by the amount of discussion it's generated here. It's a fairy tale. It's just not happening.

If the NFL drops the ball and provides an opening for a small group of super-rich guys (think: Cuban), those rich guys might think that a gamble of a couple of hundred million might scoop up all the best talent, provide the better show and ultimately turn those couple hundred million into a billion. They might be happy with an 8-team league, no draft, no salary cap, just cut throat competition with the cream of the football talent.You'd hate it. But that might not be enough to stop it.

 

[David Dodds]

I am pretty sure the NFL can't have scab players under a lockout scenario. That has happened in he past when the players went on strike. The NFL teams have a bunch of players already under contract should they choose to end the lockout and reopen.

 

[Doug B]

I am pretty sure the NFL can't have scab players under a lockout scenario. That has happened in he past when the players went on strike. The NFL teams have a bunch of players already under contract should they choose to end the lockout and reopen.

... you're right. The lockout would, officially, be ended when the scabs reported.However, all those contracts currently held by NFL teams -- none are guaranteed, correct? Still, the scab NFL only comes into being if all former NFLPA guys are cut en masse from NFL rosters.

But then ... Peyton Manning is a FA. Would Jerry Jones throw $30m/yr at him? Peyton wouldn't be crossing picket lines, so he might not have the reputational black mark of being a scab. Same goes for other former (in this scenario) NFL stars.

When you think about the scab NFL idea too long, all kind of strange permutations crop up.

 

[David Dodds]

This is likely the next wrinkle to be added to this mess:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/18/leverage-game-could-include-individual-lawsuits/

 

[cobalt_27]

This is likely the next wrinkle to be added to this mess:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/18/leverage-game-could-include-individual-lawsuits/

Oh come on. If they do that, I'm done. Probably not alone either.

 

[Jason Wood]

This is likely the next wrinkle to be added to this mess:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/18/leverage-game-could-include-individual-lawsuits/

Oh come on. If they do that, I'm done. Probably not alone either.

Individual lawsuits would be so asinine that it actually might do the impossible -- ruin the NFLs time atop the American sports pantheon.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd have to look at the complaint again. But if part of what the players are suing for as a class are damages for being illegally locked out, I don't see how they can pursue the same thing with individual suits in state court. (Did some of the players opt out of the Brady suit?)

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'd have to look at the complaint again. But if part of what the players are suing for as a class are damages for being illegally locked out, I don't see how they can pursue the same thing with individual suits in state court. (Did some of the players opt out of the Brady suit?)

I was thinking the same thing. Even if they opted out or would argue that they weren't necessarily included in the Brady, et al suit (was it actually filed as a class action suit?), wouldn't most courts be likely to go with the precedent set by the 8th Circuit Appeals and throw the suit out because it belongs before the NLRB? Obviously courts in other jurisdictions wouldn't be bound by another circuit's precedent, but I would think that they would be highly likely to defer.I also think that this threat could backfire quite severely. Isn't part of the objective for requiring the players to keep this in the NLRB for now despite not officially being a union anymore specifically to prevent something like this? It seems to me that making this threat could actually undermine their future claims before the NLRB as well as anger the 8th Circuit Court right now?

 

[Andrew Garda]

This is likely the next wrinkle to be added to this mess:

http://profootballta...idual-lawsuits/

Oh come on. If they do that, I'm done. Probably not alone either.

Individual lawsuits would be so asinine that it actually might do the impossible -- ruin the NFLs time atop the American sports pantheon.

I'd actually hazard a guess damage is being done as it is. this would just nail the lid on the coffin.

 

[Cripster]

This is likely the next wrinkle to be added to this mess:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/18/leverage-game-could-include-individual-lawsuits/

This may be posturing born of frustration. But it would not surprise me at all if NFLPA leadership supports this.

 

[Insomniac]

I know there's a piece of the logic puzzle missing, but:Going by what you wrote, the owners should move post-haste to a scab league. When this happened in 1987, attendances were down, but fairly robust considering that all the stars were striking. Of course, in 2011, the TV money is tons bigger ... maybe some of the more deeply invested parties (networks, advertisers) would have some influence preventing a full-blown scab league.I wonder though ... say the NFL went scab right now and never looked back. The league would surely as popular in, say, 2016 as it was last year? Or at least close? Can the owner take the popularity of football for granted, and just throw out warm bodies? Might that work in the LONG run (5+ years)?So then ... what are the factors preventing owners from hiring scabs tomorrow? Anti-trust regulations, maybe, since there's still be no union to collectively bargain with. So no cap, and presumably no draft. And I guess down the road, some of the scabs would become the stars, and thus be able to command big sums in the no-salary-cap scab league.Trying to "logic" this out to see is a no-CBA scab league still (eventually) gets pricey for the teams and, ultimately, uncompetitive as Dallas, Washington, etc. buy up the best scabs.

If the owners end the lockout and open for business what prevents the players under contract from reporting to work? Are they going to release all these players and blacklist them from the league? Are they going to refuse to sign all veteran free agents?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If Week One can start as late as October 2nd and still see a 16-game season, what's the latest we could have a resolution and still do the pre-season prep work?

Dodd's has said July 15th, but that seems too early to me. A week to let teams digest the deal, two weeks for FAs, three weeks of training camp, and two preseason games means you could start as late as August 7th or so and still start on 10/2.

Does that seem about right to folks? I'd expect that the last possible minute to get a deal done is when a deal will get done (if it does).

 

[GridironMenace]

One more time:

The NFL resembles very few industries on the planet. It sure as heck isn't comparable to FBGs. Principals are not the same. Not even close. It's boggling to think you really think you can compare the two.

THE OWNERS ARE NOT YOUR BOSSES. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT YOU. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OTHER LABOR DEBATES.

A multibillion dollar entertainment industry /= a profitable website, a car company or an insurance company.

You couldn't run the league the way you run this site or any of the other examples above. Comparing the two is silly. You want to compare it to something? Talk the Film/TV industry and the studio system. You can argue your point from there - they don't open their books and their accounting looks about as shady as the owners.

Do they need to open their books? No, not really. Can the players just up and leave?

I don't know - how many professional football leagues are there?

My post was taking into consideration that you understood what the word 'principle' means. Of course the NFL isn't the "same" as FBG or a grocery store. However, the principle remains absolutely the same. It doesn't matter if the private company makes $500K/year or $500 million/year. Once again, Andrew, the principle remains absolutely the same. I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend.Al Davis is to Darren McFadden as Joe Bryant is to you. Period. End of story. Doesn't matter that Al Davis and the Oakland Raiders is much more profitable than FBG and Joe Bryant. The amount of money is meaningless. If Bryant wants you to take a paycut, you accept it or you move on. If Al Davis wants McFadden to take a paycut, he accepts it or he moves on.

The fact that there is only 1 NFL doesn't matter either. They can play in the UFL or become a travel agent. Once again, they don't have a right to play in the NFL.