NFL Special Master rules in favor of ownership (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

We discussed a few weeks ago that the NFLPA had a case before the NFL Special Master claiming that the $4 billion in negotiated TV revenues (regardless of whether the games are played) was unfair and negotiated unfairly knowing that a lockout was possible. They were asking for the $4 billion to be kept in escrow while the CBA negotiations took place.

Quietly, the special master rules this week:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/fe...ng-on-tv-deals/

The NFLPA got $6.7 million in "damages" but lost the war as the NFL owners got to keep their $4 billion. The NFLPA really needed this ruling to go in their favor to have any hope the owners would fracture internally and has some push against the lockout no matter what.

 

[Tom Servo]

How long has there been talk of a lockout? 2, 3 years? In any event, a work stoppage is always possible given recent sports labor history.

Good ruling IMO.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I have no idea what the legal issues were or weren't so won't comment on the ruling.

But if I were the players I might start to wonder about how much I'd be cooperating with ESPN, CBS and NBC in the future. It certainly appears that the networks worked with the owners to clear the way for a 2011 lockout, and negotiated a contract to protect the owners financially when it happened.

 

[DiStefano]

I have no idea what the legal issues were or weren't so won't comment on the ruling.But if I were the players I might start to wonder about how much I'd be cooperating with ESPN, CBS and NBC in the future. It certainly appears that the networks worked with the owners to clear the way for a 2011 lockout, and negotiated a contract to protect the owners financially when it happened.

So what are the players going to do? Refuse to smile on camera?

 

[Sabertooth]

I have no idea what the legal issues were or weren't so won't comment on the ruling.But if I were the players I might start to wonder about how much I'd be cooperating with ESPN, CBS and NBC in the future. It certainly appears that the networks worked with the owners to clear the way for a 2011 lockout, and negotiated a contract to protect the owners financially when it happened.

So what are the players going to do? Refuse to smile on camera?

ESPN has interviews all the time. They could all just walk around the locker rooms naked like Shiancoe. There are things they could do.

 

[RUSF18]

I have no idea what the legal issues were or weren't so won't comment on the ruling.But if I were the players I might start to wonder about how much I'd be cooperating with ESPN, CBS and NBC in the future. It certainly appears that the networks worked with the owners to clear the way for a 2011 lockout, and negotiated a contract to protect the owners financially when it happened.

So what are the players going to do? Refuse to smile on camera?

ESPN has interviews all the time. They could all just walk around the locker rooms naked like Shiancoe. There are things they could do.

So ESPN would focus almost entirely on game film instead of player spotlights? Sign me up!

 

[GroveDiesel]

I have no idea what the legal issues were or weren't so won't comment on the ruling.But if I were the players I might start to wonder about how much I'd be cooperating with ESPN, CBS and NBC in the future. It certainly appears that the networks worked with the owners to clear the way for a 2011 lockout, and negotiated a contract to protect the owners financially when it happened.

And then those networks could choose to focus on promoting the teams and any players that chose to work with them while not promoting individual players that refused to work with them. And ultimately, if the networks WERE hurt by the players refusing to cooperate with them, then the next time tv contracts were up for renewal, the NFL would get less money from them. And that would lead to less money available to pay the players. Which means the players would have hurt themselves financially. Who do you think is going to be hurt more by that outcome? The reality is that the players have zero leverage in this aspect.Where the players really ARE getting screwed is that it's not just a free $4B that the owners are getting. That money would then be taken out of the remainder of the contract. I think there are like 3 years remaining on those deals after this year. So each year remaining on the contract would be reduced by about $1.3B. Which means that the owners will have to pay out less in salaries for those 3 years because there will be less revenue. So the owners will have lost the revenue from one year, while the players will have lost all of one year and get less revenue in 3 other years.

 

[Jason Wood]

ESPN has become monolithic, it accounts for 30% of all of Disney Corporations profits. I hardly think a few players refusing to "be nice" to ESPN would amount to much. This isn't a David & Goliath anymore, in fact, ESPN is as much a Goliath, if not more, than the NFL at this point.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

NFPost: NFL labor pains #7

...the NFLPA claimed some positive news out of the ruling, saying that there were violations of the CBA found specifically in the league’s contracts with ESPN and NBC, and that there were damages awarded. However, a damage award of $6.9 million – they were seeking damages of $60 million -- compared to revenue to the NFL of $4 billion in 2011 with or without football is striking.

Also, the fact that the union will appeal the ruling to the federal judge in charge of overseeing CBA issues, David Doty, is a sign that they took a blow here. Doty has been a friend to the players in the past and the union is hoping for similar empathy here. This loss is a psychological blow to the NFLPA, though may spur them to negotiate more purposefully.

------------------------------------------------------

Bottom line is that the NFLPA got their hat handed to them and spinning any positive outcome after the ruling is noise.

 

[CrossEyed]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

 

[Tackling Dummies]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

 

[Spike]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

Yes.Seriously, what reason could the owners have to cave in on anything?

 

[Andrew Garda]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

You guys do realize that no season = paying a big chunk of the 4b back right?It's a big deal to be sure but it's not free money.It does help keep the dove owners quiet a bit but they know that a missed season will have to be paid for eventually.

 

[Dexter Manley]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

You guys do realize that no season = paying a big chunk of the 4b back right?It's a big deal to be sure but it's not free money.It does help keep the dove owners quiet a bit but they know that a missed season will have to be paid for eventually.

Right. My understanding is that the owners would have to pay all the network $$$ collected this season (with no football) back to the networks with interest. The exception is the $1 Billion or so they get from DirectTV, which I don't think they would have to pay back per their contract.

 

[CrossEyed]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

You guys do realize that no season = paying a big chunk of the 4b back right?It's a big deal to be sure but it's not free money.It does help keep the dove owners quiet a bit but they know that a missed season will have to be paid for eventually.

It will just roll into the next contract. The point is, the longer they can hold out the more likely they are to get greater concessions from the players.

 

[massraider]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

Yes.Seriously, what reason could the owners have to cave in on anything?

Two sides can cave. The players will cave long before anyone can start missing a paycheck.

 

[Jason Wood]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

You guys do realize that no season = paying a big chunk of the 4b back right?It's a big deal to be sure but it's not free money.It does help keep the dove owners quiet a bit but they know that a missed season will have to be paid for eventually.

That's not nearly as onerous as having the capital escrowed though, because all sides know the league will go on and that money will be absorbed/extended into future contracts with the networks. The NFLPA desperately wanted the $4 billion held back because of the CASH FLOW that it would've taken away from ownership. Owners have ongoing expenses they need to maintain, not the least of which are interest payments on their hefty debt loads, and not having that $4 billion would've put the "have not" owners in a much weaker position to auger in for an extended stoppage.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

You guys do realize that no season = paying a big chunk of the 4b back right?It's a big deal to be sure but it's not free money.It does help keep the dove owners quiet a bit but they know that a missed season will have to be paid for eventually.

That's not nearly as onerous as having the capital escrowed though, because all sides know the league will go on and that money will be absorbed/extended into future contracts with the networks. The NFLPA desperately wanted the $4 billion held back because of the CASH FLOW that it would've taken away from ownership. Owners have ongoing expenses they need to maintain, not the least of which are interest payments on their hefty debt loads, and not having that $4 billion would've put the "have not" owners in a much weaker position to auger in for an extended stoppage.

Dead on. The ruling really puts the NFLPA in a poor leverage position at the beginning of the Smith-Goodell discussions.

 

[CrossEyed]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

Yes.Seriously, what reason could the owners have to cave in on anything?

Two sides can cave. The players will cave long before anyone can start missing a paycheck.

I think you may be underestimating the ego and stubbornness of a lot of professional athletes.

 

[GroveDiesel]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

You guys do realize that no season = paying a big chunk of the 4b back right?It's a big deal to be sure but it's not free money.

It does help keep the dove owners quiet a bit but they know that a missed season will have to be paid for eventually.

That's not nearly as onerous as having the capital escrowed though, because all sides know the league will go on and that money will be absorbed/extended into future contracts with the networks. The NFLPA desperately wanted the $4 billion held back because of the CASH FLOW that it would've taken away from ownership. Owners have ongoing expenses they need to maintain, not the least of which are interest payments on their hefty debt loads, and not having that $4 billion would've put the "have not" owners in a much weaker position to auger in for an extended stoppage.

Actually, the owners that would have been in the most trouble aren't the ones typically thought of as the "have not" owners. Guys like Snyder, Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Woody Johnson and the Maras have huge debt loads because of their stadiums and other investments. Those guys would be in a lot of trouble with no income for a year. A lot more trouble than a guy like Ralph Wilson who owns his stadium.

 

[massraider]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

Yes.Seriously, what reason could the owners have to cave in on anything?

Two sides can cave. The players will cave long before anyone can start missing a paycheck.

I think you may be underestimating the ego and stubbornness of a lot of professional athletes.

Maybe, and perhaps you underestimate the number of players that can't afford to miss paychecks.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

Yes.Seriously, what reason could the owners have to cave in on anything?

Two sides can cave. The players will cave long before anyone can start missing a paycheck.

I think you may be underestimating the ego and stubbornness of a lot of professional athletes.

Considering that a majority of former NFL players are bankrupt (link) following their playing days, it's not a good place to start the CBA talks with a $4B pot o' cash in the owner's pockets.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Viewing this from the sidelines (intended), as we all are doing, I would say - at the risk of being somewhat nitpicky - that this doesn't really lessen the union's leverage as much as it maintains the status quo, from a leverage perspective, that has been the case for over a year now. Had they won, the playing field would have significantly shifted in the players' favor. Generally, there is a ton of pain on both sides in the event of a work stoppage. In this case (one that has very little in common with a typical labor dispute), almost all of the pain from a work stoppage will fall on the players. There is really a very fascinating dynamic going on in this dispute - would be great to be a fly on the wall.

 

[CrossEyed]

Maybe, and perhaps you underestimate the number of players that can't afford to miss paychecks.

You may be right. But I'm thinking this thing will not be resolved anytime soon.

 

[Andrew Garda]

So can we just assume no NFL season in 2011?

$4B in the bank is enough to keep the doves quiet and in line. I'm a glass full guy, but this looks bleaker by the day.

You guys do realize that no season = paying a big chunk of the 4b back right?It's a big deal to be sure but it's not free money.It does help keep the dove owners quiet a bit but they know that a missed season will have to be paid for eventually.

That's not nearly as onerous as having the capital escrowed though, because all sides know the league will go on and that money will be absorbed/extended into future contracts with the networks. The NFLPA desperately wanted the $4 billion held back because of the CASH FLOW that it would've taken away from ownership. Owners have ongoing expenses they need to maintain, not the least of which are interest payments on their hefty debt loads, and not having that $4 billion would've put the "have not" owners in a much weaker position to auger in for an extended stoppage.

No dead right - they'll at least get interest from the cash. And without the deal the owners would have been much worse off. just saying that long term, a missed season would end up painful for the owners as well.Extra points for use of the word onerous BTW.

 

[Jason Wood]

Viewing this from the sidelines (intended), as we all are doing, I would say - at the risk of being somewhat nitpicky - that this doesn't really lessen the union's leverage as much as it maintains the status quo, from a leverage perspective, that has been the case for over a year now. Had they won, the playing field would have significantly shifted in the players' favor. Generally, there is a ton of pain on both sides in the event of a work stoppage. In this case (one that has very little in common with a typical labor dispute), almost all of the pain from a work stoppage will fall on the players. There is really a very fascinating dynamic going on in this dispute - would be great to be a fly on the wall.

That's a great clarification

 

[bostonfred]

I can't imagine one guy being in charge of deciding what happens with those four billion dollars. I bet he gets free tickets to everything.

 

[Adebisi]

Good. After that ridiculous ad that the NFLPA tried to air, I am firmly in the owners' corner.

 

[Jason Wood]

I can't imagine one guy being in charge of deciding what happens with those four billion dollars. I bet he gets free tickets to everything.

He's actually a professor at my alma mater.

 

[Cripster]

Players also received a ruling that health insurance is gone March 3rd. They had hoped to extend owner provided health care to August 31st, the policy end date. But a ruling was made Wednesday that they would have to go on COBRA March 3rd. No surprise here, but they seem to be losing every battle. Just not impressed with their leadership,

 

[Andrew Garda]

I can't imagine one guy being in charge of deciding what happens with those four billion dollars. I bet he gets free tickets to everything.

He's actually a professor at my alma mater.

I want his job - not because I want to be a judge or arbitrator, but because I want a sign that says 'Special Master' on my door.

 

[Orange Crush]

Players also received a ruling that health insurance is gone March 3rd. They had hoped to extend owner provided health care to August 31st, the policy end date. But a ruling was made Wednesday that they would have to go on COBRA March 3rd. No surprise here, but they seem to be losing every battle. Just not impressed with their leadership,

You imply that the NFLPA leadership thought they were going to win. I doubt that's the case. It was a longshot, but would have sharply shifted negotiations in their favor had they won. Therefore, it was worth taking a shot. What may have been their ultimate goal was to find an issue that could be taken past the special master and get back in front of Judge Doty.

 

[David Yudkin]

I suspect this will come down to billionaires vs. millionaires. And I don't see billionaires losing that battle.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I can't imagine one guy being in charge of deciding what happens with those four billion dollars. I bet he gets free tickets to everything.

He's actually a professor at my alma mater.

South Philadelphia Vocational?

 

[duaneok66]

I suspect this will come down to billionaires vs. millionaires. And I don't see billionaires losing that battle.

good post . . .it's that simple . . . I see a deal being done before March 3rd . . .

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I suspect this will come down to billionaires vs. millionaires. And I don't see billionaires losing that battle.

good post . . .it's that simple . . . I see a deal being done before March 3rd . . .

No way a deal is done by then.

 

[Jason Wood]

I can't imagine one guy being in charge of deciding what happens with those four billion dollars. I bet he gets free tickets to everything.

He's actually a professor at my alma mater.

South Philadelphia Vocational?