Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[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?

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.

Thank you.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

So much misinformation, so little time. Leaving aside all the other hoohah...If a single team wants to cut you (i.e. not pay you the previously agreed upon salary) they can do so. Nothing controversial there. Happens every year as thing stand now.

But if the NFL wants to cut your salary by having 32 teams collude to ensure that no one offers you more than that single team was willing to pay it's just plain illegal. Exactly as it would be in every other industry.

 

[GridironMenace]

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/

What a freaking joke. I don't know the legal issues regarding this, but it bothers me immensely when the players hold out for more money and threaten retirement while under contract, but yet will think about doing something like this. They want a longterm contract with a large signing bonus and then want to hold out for more money and another signing bonus 2 years into a 6 year deal. What a freaking joke.

 

[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.

So much misinformation, so little time. Leaving aside all the other hoohah...If a single team wants to cut you (i.e. not pay you the previously agreed upon salary) they can do so. Nothing controversial there. Happens every year as thing stand now.

But if the NFL wants to cut your salary by having 32 teams collude to ensure that no one offers you more than that single team was willing to pay it's just plain illegal. Exactly as it would be in every other industry.

That's a load of crap. Show me proof where 32 teams collude to not pay a player. And I would love to see evidence that this consistently happens on every player every year. Thanks.

 

[Cripster]

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).

I was thinking July 31st. I am wondering if the owners will release a date to up the pressure on the players.

 

[David Dodds]

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).

I was thinking July 31st. I am wondering if the owners will release a date to up the pressure on the players.

I think the first pressure salvo by the Commish will be announcing that week 1 games are cancelled. He won't explain that those games can be made up if they can agree to terms. I fully expect that first salvo to come sometime in July. Hopefully that announcement gets the wheels turning for both sides.I said July 15th to play the announced full schedule on time. If the league changes dates for the first 3 weeks, this deal could get done as late as the first week of August and still play all 16 games.

 

[David Dodds]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.

UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.

Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union.

This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

 

[Jason Wood]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The owners cannot implement any rules they want, because they risk major violations of antitrust unless said rules are collectively bargained. But more to the point, they don't want to run their business in the status quo, as is their right.

 

[GridironMenace]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The owners cannot implement any rules they want, because they risk major violations of antitrust unless said rules are collectively bargained. But more to the point, they don't want to run their business in the status quo, as is their right.

If the players never reform the union, won't the owners have to create rules?

Come one David, we all know that when the dust settles, they will reform the union. They only decertified to try and get a leg up in court. It's was just a litigation ploy. The current CBA was unsustainable. When the number 1 overall pick is making 50+% of a teams salary, there is a problem in Houston, no?

 

[David Dodds]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The owners cannot implement any rules they want, because they risk major violations of antitrust unless said rules are collectively bargained. But more to the point, they don't want to run their business in the status quo, as is their right.

If the players never reform the union, won't the owners have to create rules?and regarding the status quo, the owners very much want the status quo. They want a salary cap, restricted free agency, the draft, etc

 

[Jason Wood]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The owners cannot implement any rules they want, because they risk major violations of antitrust unless said rules are collectively bargained. But more to the point, they don't want to run their business in the status quo, as is their right.

If the players never reform the union, won't the owners have to create rules?and regarding the status quo, the owners very much want the status quo. They want a salary cap, restricted free agency, the draft, etc

They will likely be very slow to implement rules unilaterally. They want them collectively bargained. If the players stay away from the negotiating table, things will start looking grim.

 

[CalBear]

Al Davis is to Darren McFadden as Joe Bryant is to you. Period. End of story.

Really, Joe Bryant is my employer?

 

[David Dodds]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The owners cannot implement any rules they want, because they risk major violations of antitrust unless said rules are collectively bargained. But more to the point, they don't want to run their business in the status quo, as is their right.

If the players never reform the union, won't the owners have to create rules?and regarding the status quo, the owners very much want the status quo. They want a salary cap, restricted free agency, the draft, etc

They will likely be very slow to implement rules unilaterally. They want them collectively bargained. If the players stay away from the negotiating table, things will start looking grim.

I would argue that unless the owners/Commish present a deal that the players think makes sense, things will start looking grim. The union doesn't exist anymore so expecting long negotiating sessions between the owners and a non-existent group isn't going to happen.

 

[GridironMenace]

Al Davis is to Darren McFadden as Joe Bryant is to you. Period. End of story.

Really, Joe Bryant is my employer?

Why take away the quoted text? And, what's the point of your post?If you are Andrew Garda, whom that comment was pointed to, then yes, I believe so.

 

[renesauz]

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.

MAYBE....depending on the injury, but they aren't going to receive more than a few million.I guess my only real point is that the whole "they deserve to get paid more because they put their bodies on the line" argument rings hollow to me. Seems like they get paid more than enough to nullify that particular argument.

 

[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.

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.

Oh...I agree. They are rare. But draws aren't that rare. Neither are 1 goal wins. And down 1 goal, the fans of the lesser team still have something to root for, because it's still only 1 goal. Fans of football teams down 30, with 50 yards of offense to 450 yards, have nothing to root for, or hope for.The odds of a comeback victory may be about the same, but it does NOT feel that way psycologically.

 

[renesauz]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The auto companies would LOVE for the UAW to decertify. The UAW (and most unions) would never dream of such a move because it would hurt them, not help them. The auto companies would have no problem meeting all the trust laws. Pro sports unions are unique because if they ARE allowed to decertify and file anti-trust lawsuits in a literal 24 hour timeframs, it's a HUGE advantage to them. Pro sports leagues can't meet the trust laws (easily).

 

[Rockchild]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The auto companies would LOVE for the UAW to decertify. The UAW (and most unions) would never dream of such a move because it would hurt them, not help them. The auto companies would have no problem meeting all the trust laws. Pro sports unions are unique because if they ARE allowed to decertify and file anti-trust lawsuits in a literal 24 hour timeframs, it's a HUGE advantage to them. Pro sports leagues can't meet the trust laws (easily).

At what point can they decertify then? Do you think the owners ability to lock the players out at the immediate end of the CBA should be permitted too? Or should they have some sort of wait period? I'm not trying to be a smartalec because this is where I get confused with the recent ruling. Locking out the players is a huge advantage to the owners then isn't it?

 

[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.

Oh...I agree. They are rare. But draws aren't that rare. Neither are 1 goal wins. And down 1 goal, the fans of the lesser team still have something to root for, because it's still only 1 goal. Fans of football teams down 30, with 50 yards of offense to 450 yards, have nothing to root for, or hope for.The odds of a comeback victory may be about the same, but it does NOT feel that way psycologically.

Sure they do. They can root for the cover. Or the over. Or their FF players to rack up garbage stats. Sure, spreads will be bigger, but Vegas will still make thelines interesting.

 

[Catbird]

IMO the real industry difference that makes anti-trust and nationl labor laws so ill fit to pro sports, and particularly football, is that the aim of the individual NFL teams is to support each other and make sure all succeed. In other businesses, the goal is to beat, if not crush out of business altogether, the others in the industry. But the goal of the NFL business is entertainment and to gain fan involvement. Free agency restrictions, team salary caps and the draft are all critical elements of NFL continuing parity, which is pretty well proven to greatly expand total income and league profits (for players and owners alike). Those restrictions would all be anti-competitive practices in a normal industry and would both never exist and never pass labor or anti-trust regulations if they did. (This is why the owners can't go forward with ANY unilateral system they might impose - because any restrictions on a player's freedom to change employers, any multi-team salary cap 'collusion', any requirement forcing rookies through a draft, would be anti-trust and labor law violations, subjecting the teams to suit and (treble) damages by every player in football for each kind of violation.

So we have anti-trust and labor laws that impose penalties against the teams for making the league more successful and which financially reward both the owners and players. For other types of business, the labor and anti-trust laws are to protect weaker businesses from the semi-monopolistic power of larger businesses, businesses from unfair trade practices of others seeking to outcompete (destroy) them, and labor laws to protect employees and unions from management abuse of nameless, faceless employees and from crushing the right to organize.

This makes the anti-trust laws, and to a lesser but significant extent labor laws, particularly ill-fitting to the NFL - because the laws created to keep businesses from praying on their lesser brethren are drafted in such a way that they prohibit NFL teams from maintaining the parity and balance which make it the most productive and profitable business it can be.

So the NFL can only circumvent those restrictions by mutual agreement of the players and the owners to a CBA. As long as teh owners and players are in agreement and have freely bargained, they can agree to waive any anti-trust or labor claim they might otherwise raise against each other and play by teh rules they mutualy approve. And both know they need an agreement to go forward, and both want the best agreement for their side. Players threaten to have no union and litigate the anti-trust violations which maintain parity, but they know it would cost more than half of them a good portion of their current guaranteed salaries and over the long term would reduce league income and thus the income pool from which they take salary. Owners wan to starve the players into income distribution concessions, but know they can't do anything without a CBA (unless they feel they have to as a negotiating tactic for a short and ultra-cautious leap into anti-trust violations they would have to hope they could negotiate away thereafter).

So, it seems to me that the players want a CBA, but don't want to give in any more than they have to. The owners need a CBA and are trying to starve the players into rebellion against the (decertified in name only) union leadership and capitulation. Both sides are using poorly suited labor and anti-trust laws whenever and however those might support their cause, with the owners trying to play as trump card (of delay through a lengthy and tedious NLRB system) and both sides whatever other legal circumstances exist that might help their cause, no matter how ill suited and inappropriate those laws and regs are to a pro sport.

I don't see either side asparticularly good guys or as particularly bad guys. Just guys on two sides who all want to play football, but who want to get as much for doing that as they can from concessions by the other. And that now its a waiting game until the eleventh hour, when both sides believe the end is here and their opponent has given in as much as they can be made to - at which point they make a deal and play all 16, or at the very least 14 games, of a late starting season. IMO, anyone expecting anything sooner or more satisfying between now and July is making themself crazy over something they can't control or change - and might as well relax and watch it unfold. There will be games and a fantasy season - just not aa soon as we would like.

 

[Lucky Lefty]

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.

MAYBE....depending on the injury, but they aren't going to receive more than a few million.I guess my only real point is that the whole "they deserve to get paid more because they put their bodies on the line" argument rings hollow to me. Seems like they get paid more than enough to nullify that particular argument.

They (players) haven't ask for MORE money... Next...

 

[Jason Wood]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The owners cannot implement any rules they want, because they risk major violations of antitrust unless said rules are collectively bargained. But more to the point, they don't want to run their business in the status quo, as is their right.

If the players never reform the union, won't the owners have to create rules?and regarding the status quo, the owners very much want the status quo. They want a salary cap, restricted free agency, the draft, etc

They will likely be very slow to implement rules unilaterally. They want them collectively bargained. If the players stay away from the negotiating table, things will start looking grim.

I would argue that unless the owners/Commish present a deal that the players think makes sense, things will start looking grim. The union doesn't exist anymore so expecting long negotiating sessions between the owners and a non-existent group isn't going to happen.

I think you're confusing the league for 1,900 Carson Palmers instead of 1,900 Mark Brunells and Tiki Barbers.

 

[Spiderman]

This is exactly what was predicted to the letter. The Players will appeal this ruling against them to the entire panel of judges in the Appellate Court, but it is unlikely they will take it up. Even if they did, the Players had a better chance of getting the ruling with a randomly selected panel of three judges as the entire panel is about 85% Conservative. The Supreme Court petition is likely to be rejected and this isn't making its way there. The Players now have the ball in their court. They know that this decision is about to strip them of all of their leverage. They know that the Union is going to start falling apart as players start to realize their paychecks are actually at risk. The pressure is going to start mounting to get a deal done so that people can get back to work and let's not delay the inevitable. And the longer this plays out, the bigger the cracks that are going to be forming in the Union. When this is done, the Owners should set a deadline and tell the players that when that deadline is hit, the deal is getting a little less sweet each passing month until a deal can be struck. Period.

This is looking like it could be over within a month or two now. The season is likely to be saved in my opinion (70% chance) and continuing to look better and better.

 

[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?

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.

No, it really isn't. But you're busy being right so I'm pretty much done trying to talk to you about it. It's not about the basic right, it's about the uniqueness of the industry. The difference between what I do and what McFadden does is tremendous. You could compare McFadden to, say Chris Berman - that might make sense. But a writer on a fantasy site is far more replaceable than a running back in the NFL.

But you're too busy being condescending so I'll just move on.

Enjoy the rest of the thread.

 

[WVU Alum]

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.

No, it really isn't. But you're busy being right so I'm pretty much done trying to talk to you about it. It's not about the basic right, it's about the uniqueness of the industry. The difference between what I do and what McFadden does is tremendous. You could compare McFadden to, say Chris Berman - that might make sense. But a writer on a fantasy site is far more replaceable than a running back in the NFL.

But you're too busy being condescending so I'll just move on.

Enjoy the rest of the thread.

I have been looking for a side gig...

 

[jbobbett]

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?

That is the opposite of what the owners want. That is what the players are trying to threaten - free market football with anti-trust risk. The owners will never do that willingly. If the lockout is judged to be legal by the courts then I think the only way it ends is with a CBA. I don't think it will take long because SO MUCH money will be lost quickly. You never know though. As far as I know no american sports union has had to accept a worse deal than they had before (not sure about the last NHL deal). That will be a hard pill to swallow. De Smith says the players are prepared to endure a 2 year lockout.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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?

That is the opposite of what the owners want. That is what the players are trying to threaten - free market football with anti-trust risk. The owners will never do that willingly. If the lockout is judged to be legal by the courts then I think the only way it ends is with a CBA. I don't think it will take long because SO MUCH money will be lost quickly. You never know though. As far as I know no american sports union has had to accept a worse deal than they had before (not sure about the last NHL deal). That will be a hard pill to swallow. De Smith says the players are prepared to endure a 2 year lockout.

The NHL deal was worse for the players IIRC.2 year lockout? these players wont survive a month Im thinking

 

[roadkill1292]

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?

That is the opposite of what the owners want. That is what the players are trying to threaten - free market football with anti-trust risk. The owners will never do that willingly. If the lockout is judged to be legal by the courts then I think the only way it ends is with a CBA. I don't think it will take long because SO MUCH money will be lost quickly. You never know though. As far as I know no american sports union has had to accept a worse deal than they had before (not sure about the last NHL deal). That will be a hard pill to swallow. De Smith says the players are prepared to endure a 2 year lockout.

I think that's outrageous posturing by our friend Mr. Smith. The players' single biggest weakness in these negotiations is the size of their bank accounts and their money-managing abilities. For every Peyton Manning or Tom Brady set financially for life, there are 30 guys who would otherwise be forced into flipping burgers for a paycheck.The CBA will get done. It's just a question of where the two parties will meet in between their current positions. I think the players will give a little on the salary cap and the owners will give a little on free agency restrictions.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I have been looking for a side gig...

The sig alone makes you worth consideration.

 

[Andrew Garda]

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?

That is the opposite of what the owners want. That is what the players are trying to threaten - free market football with anti-trust risk. The owners will never do that willingly. If the lockout is judged to be legal by the courts then I think the only way it ends is with a CBA. I don't think it will take long because SO MUCH money will be lost quickly. You never know though. As far as I know no american sports union has had to accept a worse deal than they had before (not sure about the last NHL deal). That will be a hard pill to swallow. De Smith says the players are prepared to endure a 2 year lockout.

I think that's outrageous posturing by our friend Mr. Smith. The players' single biggest weakness in these negotiations is the size of their bank accounts and their money-managing abilities. For every Peyton Manning or Tom Brady set financially for life, there are 30 guys who would otherwise be forced into flipping burgers for a paycheck.The CBA will get done. It's just a question of where the two parties will meet in between their current positions. I think the players will give a little on the salary cap and the owners will give a little on free agency restrictions.

what kills me is the fact that both sides have things I bet they are perfectly willing to give up - like the rookie salary cap - that don't even seem to be getting thrown in. we already know there will be some back and forth hemming and hawing which drags things down - I wish they'd just get to it.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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?

lThat is the opposite of what the owners want. That is what the players are trying to threaten - free market football with anti-trust risk. The owners will never do that willingly. If the lockout is judged to be legal by the courts then I think the only way it ends is with a CBA. I don't think it will take long because SO MUCH money will be lost quickly. You never know though. As far as I know no american sports union has had to accept a worse deal than they had before (not sure about the last NHL deal). That will be a hard pill to swallow. De Smith says the players are prepared to endure a 2 year lockout.

Not only was the NHL deal worse for the players, but the upcoming NBA labor nightmare will almost certainly end up in a deal that is much worse for the players (and their last deal actually was worse too as it added salary caps both on teams and players).

 

[GroveDiesel]

I don't agree with all of this guy's arguments even though I'm generally on the side of the owners, but it's an interesting read anyway:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/72996

 

[unckeyherb]

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.

If they were to go to a 'scab' league I'd be willing to bet that very large majority of players would cross over and play-especially considering the fact that there are already guys pulling half a million dollar loans with 30% interest out. You'd lose the top 10-15% of talent that is currently the NFL. In 2-3 years you'd have the same product that has been out there the last ten years.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Not only was the NHL deal worse for the players, but the upcoming NBA labor nightmare will almost certainly end up in a deal that is much worse for the players (and their last deal actually was worse too as it added salary caps both on teams and players).

I would think that after deals which were signed when things were flush, which were inflated because times were good, we'll see several deals what roll back at least a little.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I don't agree with all of this guy's arguments even though I'm generally on the side of the owners, but it's an interesting read anyway:

http://www.hoover.or...s/article/72996

I don't agree with ALL of it...but I agree with a lot of it. Glad someone else is saying it.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I don't agree with all of this guy's arguments even though I'm generally on the side of the owners, but it's an interesting read anyway:

http://www.hoover.or...s/article/72996

I don't agree with ALL of it...but I agree with a lot of it. Glad someone else is saying it.

To step back a moment, the key insight here is that competitive athletic leagues are not like typical competitive industries. In standard competitive markets dealing with the sale of, say, computers or shaving cream, each firm hopes to gain the largest possible share of the overall market, without showing any solicitude for the survival of its opponents. In competitive leagues, however, the road to financial perdition is paved with weekly blowouts of league patsies by well-heeled teams. "On any given Sunday," as they used to say in the NFL, any team in the league could beat any other. To ensure their own popularity and financial success, owners and players alike need to assure some measure of parity among teams to generate the nail biters that keep fans coming back. The objective in this business is not to crush your opponents. It is to be just better enough than your stalwart opponents in order to win championships. This model is truly ubiquitous, for it is the only one that works in league sports, no matter what the profit levels of the teams are.

 

[David Dodds]

Since the owners are locking out the players, do they owe dollars to players under contract if the season isn't played?

Does a player get credit for a season played if he is locked out from playing the year?

Does a player get his offseason workout bonus if he is forbidden to workout at the team's facilities?

 

[Andrew Garda]

Since the owners are locking out the players, do they owe dollars to players under contract if the season isn't played?Does a player get credit for a season played if he is locked out from playing the year?Does a player get his offseason workout bonus if he is forbidden to workout at the team's facilities?

I THINK that's part of the lawsuit, but I could be wrong.

 

[jbobbett]

Since the owners are locking out the players, do they owe dollars to players under contract if the season isn't played?Does a player get credit for a season played if he is locked out from playing the year?Does a player get his offseason workout bonus if he is forbidden to workout at the team's facilities?

The owners would have no chance if they had to pay the players during the lockout.

 

[renesauz]

Change the players side with the United Auto Workers for some laughs.UAW: We no longer want to be a union. By decertifying, you can implement any rules you would like.Ford, Chevy, etc: We are suing you to force you to remain a union. And you are locked out until you are back negotiating with us in good faith as a union. This really is bizarro world. The owners can implement any rules they want right now. But they prefer to be locked out and only negotiate with a non-existent union.

The auto companies would LOVE for the UAW to decertify. The UAW (and most unions) would never dream of such a move because it would hurt them, not help them. The auto companies would have no problem meeting all the trust laws. Pro sports unions are unique because if they ARE allowed to decertify and file anti-trust lawsuits in a literal 24 hour timeframs, it's a HUGE advantage to them. Pro sports leagues can't meet the trust laws (easily).

At what point can they decertify then? Do you think the owners ability to lock the players out at the immediate end of the CBA should be permitted too? Or should they have some sort of wait period? I'm not trying to be a smartalec because this is where I get confused with the recent ruling. Locking out the players is a huge advantage to the owners then isn't it?

As I understand it (and I could be wrong), the players can still decertify any time they want. One common interpretation of the NLA is that they can't decertify and immediately file anti-trust suits. That interpretation basicly says that anti-trust suits can't be used as a negotiating tactic. The similar guiding principle applies to the owners. They can use a lockout ONLY because the confrontation with the players grew out of a real labor dispute with a union. A long-term (several years) lockout probably wouldn't stand muster.Locking out the players is an advantage to the owners...no doubt about it. But that advantage is very similar to the advantage traditionally utilized by labor in the form of a strike. Just like in a strike though, it's a double-edged sword. While the owners are better equipped for a temporary stoppage...the money lost is still lost, it cannot be recovered (remember...the TV money was a LOAN, and no longer applies anyway). The advatage to the owners from this is very real, but pales in comparison to an injunction coupled with anti-trust suits. The players had ZERO reason to negotiate at all if the courts were going to force the NFL to stay open AND proceed with trust suits. The NLA appears to be designed and meant to prevent labor from utilizing trust suits as a bargaining weapon. (At least, thats one interpretation) Without the (immediate) trust suits, the only reason to decertify would be if they really wanted to move to individual bargaining, and really wanted to create the free for all system (no draft, cap, etc.) If thats what the players really want...they'll get it, but the courts will move slowly to ensure that's what they want, and aren't using the threats for another purpose. I suspect that if the players dig in this way, the NFL will comply, but the 2011 season will be lost.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Since the owners are locking out the players, do they owe dollars to players under contract if the season isn't played?Does a player get credit for a season played if he is locked out from playing the year?Does a player get his offseason workout bonus if he is forbidden to workout at the team's facilities?

I wonder how the standard language of an NFL contract reads. It would be foolish of the owners if they don't include language that ties the contract to a CBA or operation of the league in some fashion or at least relating to an NFL season/games played.My beat guess is that all contracts at least relate to an NFL season/regular season games. So if there's no NFL season then they don't get paid. Logic would say since NFL players get paid in game checks after each week and not an up front salary check for the season or a season's check after the season, that the wording in contracts somehow relates to the actual games being played. If there isn't an NFL season and thus no games, then I don't see how the players would have any claims related to their contracts.But again, I don't know the standard wording used in most NFL contracts.We do know that contracts commonly refer to free agency for a player starting "on the first day of the league year" and that, so far, the first day of the new league season hasn't started yet.

 

[roarlions]

Without the (immediate) trust suits, the only reason to decertify would be if they really wanted to move to individual bargaining, and really wanted to create the free for all system (no draft, cap, etc.)

I think decertification was done to try to prevent the lock-out, but that has failed so far.

 

[Doug B]

Another hare-brained thought:

Right now, while the former NFLPA is decertified ... could an enterprising legal beagle solicit for current/former UFL, CFL, Arena League, and unaffiliated free-agent players to joing his startup union? The Professional Football Players of America?

OK, so this guy and his staff work the phones hard for a few weeks, and manage to get about 1,300 signatures and dues from the players mentioned above. Can this head of the upstart PFPA then arrange to meet with Goodell and the NFL owners and say, "We'll collectively bargain with you. Strike a deal with US, and we've got over a thirteen hundred guys ready to report to minicamp next week."

This is a lot different than the scab idea. What I'm describing is naked opportunism taking place in the vacuum caused by the NFLPA's decertification.

 

[David Dodds]

Without the (immediate) trust suits, the only reason to decertify would be if they really wanted to move to individual bargaining, and really wanted to create the free for all system (no draft, cap, etc.)

I think decertification was done to try to prevent the lock-out, but that has failed so far.

This is why I think the players decertified as well. The players wanted business open while the negotiations continued (that strategy clearly favors the players). The billion dollar question now becomes this:Can the players make more money with or without a CBA? I am not sure anyone really knows the answer to that. Generally leagues with less restrictions on salary, free agency have led to increased dollars to the players. I sense in the longrun that would happen in the NFL too as weak ownership groups would sell to the many billionaires itching to own a team. But attacking the fabric of what the fans love (competitive balance, the draft, etc) could backfire significantly with a loss of fans. Plus to get these changes would clearly mean a lost season at a minimum. It will be interesting to see what kind of offer the owners present to the players to entice them to back off of their litigation strategy.

 

[renesauz]

Without the (immediate) trust suits, the only reason to decertify would be if they really wanted to move to individual bargaining, and really wanted to create the free for all system (no draft, cap, etc.)

I think decertification was done to try to prevent the lock-out, but that has failed so far.

This is why I think the players decertified as well. The players wanted business open while the negotiations continued (that strategy clearly favors the players). The billion dollar question now becomes this:Can the players make more money with or without a CBA? I am not sure anyone really knows the answer to that. Generally leagues with less restrictions on salary, free agency have led to increased dollars to the players. I sense in the longrun that would happen in the NFL too as weak ownership groups would sell to the many billionaires itching to own a team. But attacking the fabric of what the fans love (competitive balance, the draft, etc) could backfire significantly with a loss of fans. Plus to get these changes would clearly mean a lost season at a minimum. It will be interesting to see what kind of offer the owners present to the players to entice them to back off of their litigation strategy.

I think MOST of us agree that in the short term it would probably lead to more money for the players (also more imbalanced). Some of us believe that the loss of parity would lead to LESS money for everyone several years or a decade down the road as the NFL loses popularity in a have/have not league.I think it's a real problem that the people the owners have to negotiate with naturally have a short-term outlook. WHile labor will always have a shorter outlook than management, in this case it's "next 3-5 years", and that's all the current player generally cares about. That's not particularly fair to the next generation of players.

 

[Jason Wood]

This is why I think the players decertified as well. The players wanted business open while the negotiations continued (that strategy clearly favors the players). The billion dollar question now becomes this:

Can the players make more money with or without a CBA? I am not sure anyone really knows the answer to that. Generally leagues with less restrictions on salary, free agency have led to increased dollars to the players. I sense in the longrun that would happen in the NFL too as weak ownership groups would sell to the many billionaires itching to own a team. But attacking the fabric of what the fans love (competitive balance, the draft, etc) could backfire significantly with a loss of fans. Plus to get these changes would clearly mean a lost season at a minimum. It will be interesting to see what kind of offer the owners present to the players to entice them to back off of their litigation strategy.

They can't make money without a CBA, because there won't be a league without a CBA. All professional leagues in the U.S. operate under a CBA, which is what allows them to do the things they do. Not only do MLB, NHL and NBA have CBAs, but even MLS and Arena Football do. It's mandatory for all the reasons we've been discussing.

 

[David Dodds]

This is why I think the players decertified as well. The players wanted business open while the negotiations continued (that strategy clearly favors the players). The billion dollar question now becomes this:

Can the players make more money with or without a CBA? I am not sure anyone really knows the answer to that. Generally leagues with less restrictions on salary, free agency have led to increased dollars to the players. I sense in the longrun that would happen in the NFL too as weak ownership groups would sell to the many billionaires itching to own a team. But attacking the fabric of what the fans love (competitive balance, the draft, etc) could backfire significantly with a loss of fans. Plus to get these changes would clearly mean a lost season at a minimum. It will be interesting to see what kind of offer the owners present to the players to entice them to back off of their litigation strategy.

They can't make money without a CBA, because there won't be a league without a CBA. All professional leagues in the U.S. operate under a CBA, which is what allows them to do the things they do. Not only do MLB, NHL and NBA have CBAs, but even MLS and Arena Football do. It's mandatory for all the reasons we've been discussing.

So you are saying that if a deal doesn't get done, that the lockout will go forever? We may never know the answer to this, but I suspect at some time the owners would implement a series of rules and play football (or risk a bunch of investors starting up their own league and playing football).

 

[Jason Wood]

This is why I think the players decertified as well. The players wanted business open while the negotiations continued (that strategy clearly favors the players). The billion dollar question now becomes this:

Can the players make more money with or without a CBA? I am not sure anyone really knows the answer to that. Generally leagues with less restrictions on salary, free agency have led to increased dollars to the players. I sense in the longrun that would happen in the NFL too as weak ownership groups would sell to the many billionaires itching to own a team. But attacking the fabric of what the fans love (competitive balance, the draft, etc) could backfire significantly with a loss of fans. Plus to get these changes would clearly mean a lost season at a minimum. It will be interesting to see what kind of offer the owners present to the players to entice them to back off of their litigation strategy.

They can't make money without a CBA, because there won't be a league without a CBA. All professional leagues in the U.S. operate under a CBA, which is what allows them to do the things they do. Not only do MLB, NHL and NBA have CBAs, but even MLS and Arena Football do. It's mandatory for all the reasons we've been discussing.

So you are saying that if a deal doesn't get done, that the lockout will go forever? We may never know the answer to this, but I suspect at some time the owners would implement a series of rules and play football.

I'm saying that a CBA is a non-negotiable part of the structure of a professional sports league, and that both sides understand that. Which is why this path the players went down was dangerous from the start, and largely a misstep because they're biting off their nose to spite their face. Whether there needs to be a union is up for debate, but whether there needs to be a CBA is not.

 

[jbobbett]

This is why I think the players decertified as well. The players wanted business open while the negotiations continued (that strategy clearly favors the players). The billion dollar question now becomes this:

Can the players make more money with or without a CBA? I am not sure anyone really knows the answer to that. Generally leagues with less restrictions on salary, free agency have led to increased dollars to the players. I sense in the longrun that would happen in the NFL too as weak ownership groups would sell to the many billionaires itching to own a team. But attacking the fabric of what the fans love (competitive balance, the draft, etc) could backfire significantly with a loss of fans. Plus to get these changes would clearly mean a lost season at a minimum. It will be interesting to see what kind of offer the owners present to the players to entice them to back off of their litigation strategy.

They can't make money without a CBA, because there won't be a league without a CBA. All professional leagues in the U.S. operate under a CBA, which is what allows them to do the things they do. Not only do MLB, NHL and NBA have CBAs, but even MLS and Arena Football do. It's mandatory for all the reasons we've been discussing.

So you are saying that if a deal doesn't get done, that the lockout will go forever? We may never know the answer to this, but I suspect at some time the owners would implement a series of rules and play football (or risk a bunch of investors starting up their own league and playing football).

It's a good question. A similar question is what if the union really doesn't want to be a union? How do they get from here to there? Right now they are sort of forced to act as one because this"grows out of" a labor dispute. To get out of this they need a cba, i.e to be a union.

 

[roadkill1292]

This is why I think the players decertified as well. The players wanted business open while the negotiations continued (that strategy clearly favors the players). The billion dollar question now becomes this:

Can the players make more money with or without a CBA? I am not sure anyone really knows the answer to that. Generally leagues with less restrictions on salary, free agency have led to increased dollars to the players. I sense in the longrun that would happen in the NFL too as weak ownership groups would sell to the many billionaires itching to own a team. But attacking the fabric of what the fans love (competitive balance, the draft, etc) could backfire significantly with a loss of fans. Plus to get these changes would clearly mean a lost season at a minimum. It will be interesting to see what kind of offer the owners present to the players to entice them to back off of their litigation strategy.

They can't make money without a CBA, because there won't be a league without a CBA. All professional leagues in the U.S. operate under a CBA, which is what allows them to do the things they do. Not only do MLB, NHL and NBA have CBAs, but even MLS and Arena Football do. It's mandatory for all the reasons we've been discussing.

So you are saying that if a deal doesn't get done, that the lockout will go forever? We may never know the answer to this, but I suspect at some time the owners would implement a series of rules and play football.

I'm saying that a CBA is a non-negotiable part of the structure of a professional sports league, and that both sides understand that. Which is why this path the players went down was dangerous from the start, and largely a misstep because they're biting off their nose to spite their face. Whether there needs to be a union is up for debate, but whether there needs to be a CBA is not.

OK, I'll bite since I don't have time to really think this through: why does a sports league absolutely need a CBA?