NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why is it in the players interests to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case?

He just ruled in favor of the players on the TV contracts. When a judge starts seeing things your way, you generally want to keep him.

It's even more than that. Judge Doty was prepared to blow up the NFL entirely in 1993, based on anti-trust law. It was his informing the owners of the framework of his ruling in that case that resulted in the owners capitulating on free agency and led to the creation of the CBA that was amended and extended for 17 years. And he's consistently ruled in the players' favor since then as well. The owners believe that's because he's biased and don't believe that it's because they're afoul of anti-trust law. The players believe it's the latter, but why take a chance on a new judge if you don't have to?

 

[Insomniac]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

What good does maintaining the supremacy of the NFL do the current players? The vast majority of them will be out of the league in 5 years never to collect another paycheck from an NFL team. The league being stronger then because the current players make a sacrifice today won't help them at all.

 

[Insomniac]

You may be correct here. I think only time will tell (or access to a lot more information) if the final owners' offer was indeed "fair." But reading about the players' viewpoint of things, it is clear that they let the negotiations get personal and so their emotions acted as an obstacle to getting a deal done. As I said above, that may well end up to their benefit, as I suspect they will get an even better deal after all the litigation has progressed to a certain point within the courts. But at what cost 'tween now and then?

http://tinyurl.com/6ho44qr

the NFL’s offer, according to the NFLPA, to start the 2011 cap at $141 million ... the cap was $149 million in 2009 and would have been $154 million in 2010 if there were a cap.

The NFLPA was willing to continue the revenue split that's been in effect for most of the last 20 years. The owners "last, best offer" was a league wide cap at least $416 mil less than the former system would have paid the players. That's over $200,000 less per player, per year based on last years revenues. Obviously that doesn't get applied to each player equally, the guys making the vet minimum or the 3rd round or later draft choices on their rookie contracts wouldn't losing any $. Most of the giveback to owners comes out of the pockets of veteran who lasted long enough to get a 2nd contract- in other words the good players who proved their worth.

 

[Orange Crush]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I don't see a reason to think that an appellate court will be less favorable to the players' position than the district court. It's pretty much a slam dunk case that, without the non-statutory labor exemption (which depends on the existence of a union), practices like the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are illegal. The players will win on those claims, though it might be a Pyrrhic victory. If those practices are good for football, and if doing away with them reduces the overall size of the pie, the players might hurt themselves through litigation half as much as they hurt the owners.As a fan, I do think that the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are good for football. I'd like to see this get resolved with a new CBA that protects those practices. But I don't blame the players for using all the leverage they have, same as I don't blame the owners for doing the same. And the players' greatest leverage involves decertification. So here we are. It's just how the process works.In a free market — where all unsigned players are free agents and there is no salary cap — players would be paid what they are worth through straightforward economic principles, as if an invisible hand were directing that outcome. No threatened strikes or lockouts needed. When the parties eschew market forces in favor of collective bargaining, there are both benefits and costs. The benefits include getting to employ anti-market elements like a salary cap, restricted free agency, and franchise tags. The costs include messy, protracted battles over the appropriate level of player salaries — determined not by a market, but by collective bargaining and mediation.Ultimately, the players get the final say on whether to use a market-based approach (enforced by the courts) or a non-market-based approach (through a union) to determine the terms of their employment. I think it is pretty clear that decertifying and using a market-based approach will give them a larger percentage of the pie than the owners are currently offering. But if they follow through, it remains to be seen whether their effort will shrink the pie and turn their larger percentage into a smaller absolute piece. Either way, it's hard to blame them for using it as a credible threat. JMHO.

I feel pretty certain that if the players get what they want there will be about 10-12 viable teams in the league, ala baseball, and neither your team nor mine will be among them. The danger in completely opening the books is that agents will know exactly how much money is "available" per team. Instead of just "knowing" that Dallas has better financial opportunities than say Buffalo or San Diego, they will be able to exactly quantify that to every free agent or draftee. This will lead to an increasing majority of these players going to the Dallas franchises and shunning the Buffalo and San Diego franchises. Mark my words, if the players get everything they want, the agents will ruin this sport. And maybe that's just what the players want?

Keeping the old pay structure will lead to only 10-12 viable teams in the league?I think you're confusing actions taken to increase the players' leverage with their end goal. Sure if the players' litigation is allowed to go until a final ruling is issued by a court, then you would see a set-up similar to what you've outlined. But this move hasn't been done to blow up the league, but to a) prevent / end the owners' lockout, and b) maximize the players' leverage in the next round of negotiations. Nothing that's been said by either side has led me to believe that the players want to blow up the league. And I think that IF a complete free market system eventually comes about following the litigation, it will be at least partially because a group of big market owners want it to be that way and block any attempts to negotiate a settlement with the players.

 

[Orange Crush]

You may be correct here. I think only time will tell (or access to a lot more information) if the final owners' offer was indeed "fair." But reading about the players' viewpoint of things, it is clear that they let the negotiations get personal and so their emotions acted as an obstacle to getting a deal done.

As I said above, that may well end up to their benefit, as I suspect they will get an even better deal after all the litigation has progressed to a certain point within the courts. But at what cost 'tween now and then?

http://tinyurl.com/6ho44qr

the NFL's offer, according to the NFLPA, to start the 2011 cap at $141 million ... the cap was $149 million in 2009 and would have been $154 million in 2010 if there were a cap.

The NFLPA was willing to continue the revenue split that's been in effect for most of the last 20 years. The owners "last, best offer" was a league wide cap at least $416 mil less than the former system would have paid the players. That's over $200,000 less per player, per year based on last years revenues. Obviously that doesn't get applied to each player equally, the guys making the vet minimum or the 3rd round or later draft choices on their rookie contracts wouldn't losing any $. Most of the giveback to owners comes out of the pockets of veteran who lasted long enough to get a 2nd contract- in other words the good players who proved their worth.

To clarify, the 2009 cap was $128 million. I think the numbers above included player benefits -- the inclusive amount is how the NFLPA prefers to view the numbers.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I don't see a reason to think that an appellate court will be less favorable to the players' position than the district court. It's pretty much a slam dunk case that, without the non-statutory labor exemption (which depends on the existence of a union), practices like the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are illegal. The players will win on those claims, though it might be a Pyrrhic victory. If those practices are good for football, and if doing away with them reduces the overall size of the pie, the players might hurt themselves through litigation half as much as they hurt the owners.As a fan, I do think that the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are good for football. I'd like to see this get resolved with a new CBA that protects those practices. But I don't blame the players for using all the leverage they have, same as I don't blame the owners for doing the same. And the players' greatest leverage involves decertification. So here we are. It's just how the process works.In a free market — where all unsigned players are free agents and there is no salary cap — players would be paid what they are worth through straightforward economic principles, as if an invisible hand were directing that outcome. No threatened strikes or lockouts needed. When the parties eschew market forces in favor of collective bargaining, there are both benefits and costs. The benefits include getting to employ anti-market elements like a salary cap, restricted free agency, and franchise tags. The costs include messy, protracted battles over the appropriate level of player salaries — determined not by a market, but by collective bargaining and mediation.Ultimately, the players get the final say on whether to use a market-based approach (enforced by the courts) or a non-market-based approach (through a union) to determine the terms of their employment. I think it is pretty clear that decertifying and using a market-based approach will give them a larger percentage of the pie than the owners are currently offering. But if they follow through, it remains to be seen whether their effort will shrink the pie and turn their larger percentage into a smaller absolute piece. Either way, it's hard to blame them for using it as a credible threat. JMHO.

I feel pretty certain that if the players get what they want there will be about 10-12 viable teams in the league, ala baseball, and neither your team nor mine will be among them. The danger in completely opening the books is that agents will know exactly how much money is "available" per team. Instead of just "knowing" that Dallas has better financial opportunities than say Buffalo or San Diego, they will be able to exactly quantify that to every free agent or draftee. This will lead to an increasing majority of these players going to the Dallas franchises and shunning the Buffalo and San Diego franchises. Mark my words, if the players get everything they want, the agents will ruin this sport. And maybe that's just what the players want?

Keeping the old pay structure will lead to only 10-12 viable teams in the league?I think you're confusing actions taken to increase the players' leverage with their end goal. Sure if the players' litigation is allowed to go until a final ruling is issued by a court, then you would see a set-up similar to what you've outlined. But this move hasn't been done to blow up the league, but to a) prevent / end the owners' lockout, and b) maximize the players' leverage in the next round of negotiations. Nothing that's been said by either side has led me to believe that the players want to blow up the league. And I think that IF a complete free market system eventually comes about following the litigation, it will be at least partially because a group of big market owners want it to be that way and block any attempts to negotiate a settlement with the players.

I'm going to guess that some of the players don't understand the actions taken already or what this result would ultimately mean for them in the future. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way, you can't argue that the players are just "posturing" with these demands and also argue that the owners are serious about all of their demands and actions so far. It sounds disingenuous.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And I think that IF a complete free market system eventually comes about following the litigation, it will be at least partially because a group of big market owners want it to be that way and block any attempts to negotiate a settlement with the players.

I was wondering about this earlier. It seems to me like the small-market owners have pretty much handed over the keys to the kingdom to the Jerry Joneses and Dan Snyders of the world. Now that we've crossed the point of no litigation what's to stop the rich teams from forcing this play out to the bitter end, knowing that the league will lose badly in court, in an effort to turn the Cowboys (just to pick one obvious example) into the NFL equivalent of Yankees?ETA: doesn't it take only like 8-10 owners to block a settlement?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

And I think that IF a complete free market system eventually comes about following the litigation, it will be at least partially because a group of big market owners want it to be that way and block any attempts to negotiate a settlement with the players.

I was wondering about this earlier. It seems to me like the small-market owners have pretty much handed over the keys to the kingdom to the Jerry Joneses and Dan Snyders of the world. Now that we've crossed the point of no litigation what's to stop the rich teams from forcing this play out to the bitter end, knowing that the league will lose badly in court, in an effort to turn the Cowboys (just to pick one obvious example) into the NFL equivalent of Yankees?ETA: doesn't it take only like 8-10 owners to block a settlement?

Well I think in theory that the super rich owners realize that they still need most of the smaller market franchises to make the league as popular as it is right now. Now, would they love to find a way to force out the cheaper owners in places like Buffalo and Jacksonville and install super rich owners? Sure. But I think most of those owners realize that screwing 20 other franchises isn't good business in the long term. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit? Of course, regarding Jones specifically, after the cluster of that Super Bowl I would think he needs all the owner votes he can get to stage another Super Bowl at Jerryworld.

 

[Orange Crush]

Regardless of how this started out, it's very clear the players were driving toward the courts from jump street. They're putting a LOT of faith in American Needle and Judge Doty, and I doubt much of what they accomplish will be upheld in higher appellate courts.

I don't see a reason to think that an appellate court will be less favorable to the players' position than the district court. It's pretty much a slam dunk case that, without the non-statutory labor exemption (which depends on the existence of a union), practices like the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are illegal. The players will win on those claims, though it might be a Pyrrhic victory. If those practices are good for football, and if doing away with them reduces the overall size of the pie, the players might hurt themselves through litigation half as much as they hurt the owners.As a fan, I do think that the draft, a salary cap, and restrictions on free agency are good for football. I'd like to see this get resolved with a new CBA that protects those practices. But I don't blame the players for using all the leverage they have, same as I don't blame the owners for doing the same. And the players' greatest leverage involves decertification. So here we are. It's just how the process works.In a free market — where all unsigned players are free agents and there is no salary cap — players would be paid what they are worth through straightforward economic principles, as if an invisible hand were directing that outcome. No threatened strikes or lockouts needed. When the parties eschew market forces in favor of collective bargaining, there are both benefits and costs. The benefits include getting to employ anti-market elements like a salary cap, restricted free agency, and franchise tags. The costs include messy, protracted battles over the appropriate level of player salaries — determined not by a market, but by collective bargaining and mediation.Ultimately, the players get the final say on whether to use a market-based approach (enforced by the courts) or a non-market-based approach (through a union) to determine the terms of their employment. I think it is pretty clear that decertifying and using a market-based approach will give them a larger percentage of the pie than the owners are currently offering. But if they follow through, it remains to be seen whether their effort will shrink the pie and turn their larger percentage into a smaller absolute piece. Either way, it's hard to blame them for using it as a credible threat. JMHO.

I feel pretty certain that if the players get what they want there will be about 10-12 viable teams in the league, ala baseball, and neither your team nor mine will be among them. The danger in completely opening the books is that agents will know exactly how much money is "available" per team. Instead of just "knowing" that Dallas has better financial opportunities than say Buffalo or San Diego, they will be able to exactly quantify that to every free agent or draftee. This will lead to an increasing majority of these players going to the Dallas franchises and shunning the Buffalo and San Diego franchises. Mark my words, if the players get everything they want, the agents will ruin this sport. And maybe that's just what the players want?

Keeping the old pay structure will lead to only 10-12 viable teams in the league?I think you're confusing actions taken to increase the players' leverage with their end goal. Sure if the players' litigation is allowed to go until a final ruling is issued by a court, then you would see a set-up similar to what you've outlined. But this move hasn't been done to blow up the league, but to a) prevent / end the owners' lockout, and b) maximize the players' leverage in the next round of negotiations. Nothing that's been said by either side has led me to believe that the players want to blow up the league. And I think that IF a complete free market system eventually comes about following the litigation, it will be at least partially because a group of big market owners want it to be that way and block any attempts to negotiate a settlement with the players.

I'm going to guess that some of the players don't understand the actions taken already or what this result would ultimately mean for them in the future. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way, you can't argue that the players are just "posturing" with these demands and also argue that the owners are serious about all of their demands and actions so far. It sounds disingenuous.

Firstly, did the players make any demands regarding getting rid of the salary cap, franchise player designation, and restricted player designations during the negotiations? I didn't see any of that. Therefore, I conclude that the lawsuit is to grab additional leverage in further negotiations. Secondly, I've mentioned here several times that I think the owners were taking a hardline position much further than what they really wanted as a negotiating tactic. If they really wanted $500M, they would first ask for a billion, and then compromise on half that. The players wanted things to stay the same. So is them "compromising" at $500M giving them anything? The trick on their end is recognizing the owners' actual target number. And they could only get that by looking at the owners' financials.

 

[renesauz]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

What good does maintaining the supremacy of the NFL do the current players? The vast majority of them will be out of the league in 5 years never to collect another paycheck from an NFL team. The league being stronger then because the current players make a sacrifice today won't help them at all.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't be treated the same way (legally)as a normal labor union. TRUST/LABOR LAWS MAKE NO SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF PRO SPORTS.

 

[cobalt_27]

Agree with all of this. I would only add that the main thing my main problem with the market-based approach is that you lose any semblance of a level playing field that I think most sports fans want. Certain markets like NY or Dallas or Chicago already have an inherent advantage over smaller market clubs. It's the reality of having 32 cities in competition with each other--some are just better off than others. But, in a salary cap system that also includes mechanisms like a draft or FA tags, it increases the degrees of freedom to allow for the smaller markets to compete. Without this system, the divide between the haves and have-nots only will increase.

Yes, I think both revenue-sharing and the salary cap are probably good for competitive balance.

I also think the players, by and large, will suffer without this system. Sure, there will be the megastars who will cash in even more than they already do. But, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier players are much more likely to enjoy the advantages offered by a union/CBA than they will without it.

Probably. Along with no salary cap, there would also be no such thing as a veteran minimum (apart from state and federal minimum wage laws).

I understand that the players wouldn't give .02 cents worth to the owners, the fans, or the overall health of the game. But, it is somewhat curious why they would compromise themselves with such a drastic move as to decertify. Particularly when they got the owners to budge quite a bit on almost all points of contention.Pretty incredible, actually.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

What good does maintaining the supremacy of the NFL do the current players? The vast majority of them will be out of the league in 5 years never to collect another paycheck from an NFL team. The league being stronger then because the current players make a sacrifice today won't help them at all.

So throw out the baby with the bathwater?Terry Bradshaw never made more than $350,000 in a season.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Firstly, did the players make any demands regarding getting rid of the salary cap, franchise player designation, and restricted player designations during the negotiations? I didn't see any of that. Therefore, I conclude that the lawsuit is to grab additional leverage in further negotiations.

Secondly, I've mentioned here several times that I think the owners were taking a hardline position much further than what they really wanted as a negotiating tactic. If they really wanted $500M, they would first ask for a billion, and then compromise on half that. The players wanted things to stay the same. So is them "compromising" at $500M giving them anything? The trick on their end is recognizing the owners' actual target number. And they could only get that by looking at the owners' financials.

The bold is where I think you miss the boat. I can get the owners "target" by looking at a very high level of financial detail and be pretty close. The players demanded 10 years of very detailed financial data. That doesn't jive with just wanting to get a good ballpark target. Sorry. I think they want to maximize their revenues, which is fine, by literally screwing the smaller market clubs with extremely detailed demands and public arguments about finances. That is not fine, IMO. As a side note, I'm fascinated by how close this issue is to a normal union "fight" on the FFA, with the people I know as liberals fighting hard for the players and the people I know as conservatives fighting hard for the owners.

 

[Jason Wood]

Maurile,

As a lawyer I certainly defer to your opinion. But I was under the impression that the NFL is prepared to contend that the decertification is a farce and a clear violation of labor laws because the union intends to recertify immediately after pursuing their antitrust suit. Again, you would know better than I, but I've heard three lawyers on ESPN and NFL Radio saying that even if Doty sides with the players on that manner, there's strong belief than any appellate judge would find in the NFL's favor in that contention, and look at the last decertification (and subsequent recertification) as evidence of precedent of the NFLPA's real intentions.

 

[cobalt_27]

As a side note, I'm fascinated by how close this issue is to a normal union "fight" on the FFA, with the people I know as liberals fighting hard for the players and the people I know as conservatives fighting hard for the owners.

Yup. Although, there are a lot of more liberal-leaning/union supporting folks who are rip-#### at the NFLPA for decertifying, which is clearly not an effort to disband the union, but a litigation strategy. For as disingenuous as the owners can be and have been, this action was by far the most serious...and threatens to end the NFL as we know it.

 

[pollardsvision]

WIth the CFL, arena Football and other professional football leagues around, can't the antitrust suit be avoided by the NFL by showing the court that there are other professional leagues and jobs ofr the players that are claiming that the NFL is conspiring to prevent these players from marketing their services?This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

Things like the salary cap, restricted free agents, franchise tags are by definition anti-trust. All players should be able to negotiate any price with any team. That's the game of chicken going on. As long as the NFL is willing to play by those rules where the players can go wherever they want and there are no team maximums, then yes your point is correct. But the owners know that salaries will actually increase if they go this route. All it takes is a few owners that put winning over profit (Redskins, Cowboys, and a few others) and this could get super crazy fast.

Think Yankees / Red Sox. This is exactly why I quit following MLB a long time ago. At one time, the Pirates rostered Barry Bonds, Jay Bell, Jeff King and Bobby Bonilla. Let me tell you, that was a fun time to be a Pirates fan. Instead of this becoming the start of a kick ### dynasty, I watched the players leave town because Pittsburgh couldn't pay the players as much. After that, it made me physically ill any time an individual Pirate started playing at a high level because I knew it wouldn't be long before they would leave. To make matters worse, not only did they players leave, but the team was almost forced to start TRADING AWAY IT'S BEST PLAYERS as a preemptive strike. Otherwise, they wouldn't get anything in return because they knew that player would move on. All of a sudden, you have your team's best players leaving just as they are starting to blossom into stars.A true free market system will kill the NFL because small market teams will get dumped on, take a big bite of the #### sandwich and share it with their fans.

Using the Pirates as an example of baseball is equal to using the Lions as an example of football. They're both horribly inept franchises with crappy ownership. Neither should be mentioned as examples of normality.

You know what really sucks is the Pirates franchise is making more money by being a bottom feeder than if they tried to field a winning product. Sure, they'd like to win, but odds are the team would just lose money in an attempt to be mediocre. Tough call...lose money in the hopes of being mediocre with a lightning strike chance of making noise in the playoffs...ooooor...resign to the fact that you can turn a tidy profit off the backs of $ generating teams like the Yanks by just sitting back and enjoying the ride. Hey, if now and then you develop a great player, the Yanks can have the player as thanks. Teams like the Pirates are the welfare system of MLB. Does taking advantage of the system make the Pirates ownership crappy or brilliant?The Lions are in a much different situation because the Detroit has just as much potential to succeed as the Steelers, Patriots and Packers. The ownership has more incentive and reward to field a competitive team and realistically compete for a ring. The structure of the NFL makes for a better competitive environment from a team perspective which is better for the fans.Bottom line as things stand, a Lions fan will see their team go to the Super Bowl before a Pirates fan will see their team even make the playoffs.

While I do agree that the Pirates are in a tough spot and I have no idea when they may compete again, using the Lions in any sort of argument to highlight the NFL's parity doesn't really work.The Lions' last playoff win was 20 years ago and the last one before that was about 45 years ago. The Lions are entering their 6th consecutive decade of utter futility.The Pirates, on the other hand, won a pair of WS titles in the '70s and made baseball's final four 3 straight times in the '90s.The reasons are different, but in any give year or 5-year period, there are close to as many hopeless franchises in the NFL as there are in MLB. Certainly, it's alot closer than the differences in economics might suggest.

 

[Insomniac]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

What good does maintaining the supremacy of the NFL do the current players? The vast majority of them will be out of the league in 5 years never to collect another paycheck from an NFL team. The league being stronger then because the current players make a sacrifice today won't help them at all.

So throw out the baby with the bathwater?Terry Bradshaw never made more than $350,000 in a season.

Terry Bradshaw's salary back in the Rozelle Rule days doesn't have anything to do with current reality.

 

[Orange Crush]

Maurile,As a lawyer I certainly defer to your opinion. But I was under the impression that the NFL is prepared to contend that the decertification is a farce and a clear violation of labor laws because the union intends to recertify immediately after pursuing their antitrust suit. Again, you would know better than I, but I've heard three lawyers on ESPN and NFL Radio saying that even if Doty sides with the players on that manner, there's strong belief than any appellate judge would find in the NFL's favor in that contention, and look at the last decertification (and subsequent recertification) as evidence of precedent of the NFLPA's real intentions.

Having read the players complaint, they are saying that the subsequent recertification last time was a condition on the part of the NFL for settling the lawsuit. So the NFL cannot claim that the past recertification is evidence of the NFLPA's bad intentions when they were required to recertify to comply with the NFL's demands.Of course, I'm not as good a lawyer as Maurile. We went to the same school and all, but he's got a few years of experience on me.

 

[H8fulHuck]

Agree with all of this. I would only add that the main thing my main problem with the market-based approach is that you lose any semblance of a level playing field that I think most sports fans want. Certain markets like NY or Dallas or Chicago already have an inherent advantage over smaller market clubs. It's the reality of having 32 cities in competition with each other--some are just better off than others. But, in a salary cap system that also includes mechanisms like a draft or FA tags, it increases the degrees of freedom to allow for the smaller markets to compete. Without this system, the divide between the haves and have-nots only will increase.

Yes, I think both revenue-sharing and the salary cap are probably good for competitive balance.

I also think the players, by and large, will suffer without this system. Sure, there will be the megastars who will cash in even more than they already do. But, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier players are much more likely to enjoy the advantages offered by a union/CBA than they will without it.

Probably. Along with no salary cap, there would also be no such thing as a veteran minimum (apart from state and federal minimum wage laws).

at the thought of Tiki Barber coming back to the NFL to play for $8.00 per hour.

 

[Zdravko]

Your first paragraph exactly describes the players first formal counter-offer. As you said, they thought it made the most sense, and allowed the owners to keep their books private and make whatever business decisions they thought best for the league without needing to justify each and every little thing to the players. The owners told them to stuff it.

Orange Crush - can you find me a link, describing the bolded? Not questioning your post, just saying it would go a long way towards me forming an opinion, if it could be substantiated that the owners refused in principle to split the whole pie.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Your first paragraph exactly describes the players first formal counter-offer. As you said, they thought it made the most sense, and allowed the owners to keep their books private and make whatever business decisions they thought best for the league without needing to justify each and every little thing to the players. The owners told them to stuff it.

Orange Crush - can you find me a link, describing the bolded? Not questioning your post, just saying it would go a long way towards me forming an opinion, if it could be substantiated that the owners refused in principle to split the whole pie.

I believe this is it:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

What good does maintaining the supremacy of the NFL do the current players? The vast majority of them will be out of the league in 5 years never to collect another paycheck from an NFL team. The league being stronger then because the current players make a sacrifice today won't help them at all.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't be treated the same way (legally)as a normal labor union. TRUST/LABOR LAWS MAKE NO SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF PRO SPORTS.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Maurile,

As a lawyer I certainly defer to your opinion. But I was under the impression that the NFL is prepared to contend that the decertification is a farce and a clear violation of labor laws because the union intends to recertify immediately after pursuing their antitrust suit. Again, you would know better than I, but I've heard three lawyers on ESPN and NFL Radio saying that even if Doty sides with the players on that manner, there's strong belief than any appellate judge would find in the NFL's favor in that contention, and look at the last decertification (and subsequent recertification) as evidence of precedent of the NFLPA's real intentions.

Having read the players complaint, they are saying that the subsequent recertification last time was a condition on the part of the NFL for settling the lawsuit. So the NFL cannot claim that the past recertification is evidence of the NFLPA's bad intentions when they were required to recertify to comply with the NFL's demands.Of course, I'm not as good a lawyer as Maurile. We went to the same school and all, but he's got a few years of experience on me.

I'd be curious about how the lawyers here think this argument will be received? Is a court likely to consider why something was done, or just look at the fact that it happened?

 

[H8fulHuck]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

What good does maintaining the supremacy of the NFL do the current players? The vast majority of them will be out of the league in 5 years never to collect another paycheck from an NFL team. The league being stronger then because the current players make a sacrifice today won't help them at all.

So throw out the baby with the bathwater?Terry Bradshaw never made more than $350,000 in a season.

Terry Bradshaw's salary back in the Rozelle Rule days doesn't have anything to do with current reality.

Agreed. It's like requesting 10 year old financial records from NFL owners. Reports that the decertified NFLPA wanted to use the information to divide the owners is much more plausible an explanation than wanting to see figures to back up why the owner's costs have gone up. How could it not cost more to run the NFL in 2011 and beyond versus when the CBA was signed? The goal was to air dirty laundry and expose ridiculous expenditures to the public as and effort to sway the media and public opinion. From what I've heard reported, ownership was willing to open a portion of the books through a third party auditor. The portion opened would include certain operating expenses supporting the owners position that operating expenses today justify their position to take more off the top before dividing revenue.

Refusing to look at the financial data drives home the lack of good faith bargaining on behalf of the NFLPA. Why would they proceed with decertification in lieu of extending the negotiations to review the expenses? The NFLPA should have countered by arguing whether or not a Jerry Jones palace should be considered an operating expense. Owners and Players could negotiate a reasonable amount for stadium expenditures. If an individual owner chooses to spend more, they will have to reach into another coffer to pay for it.

 

[H8fulHuck]

Maurile,

As a lawyer I certainly defer to your opinion. But I was under the impression that the NFL is prepared to contend that the decertification is a farce and a clear violation of labor laws because the union intends to recertify immediately after pursuing their antitrust suit. Again, you would know better than I, but I've heard three lawyers on ESPN and NFL Radio saying that even if Doty sides with the players on that manner, there's strong belief than any appellate judge would find in the NFL's favor in that contention, and look at the last decertification (and subsequent recertification) as evidence of precedent of the NFLPA's real intentions.

Having read the players complaint, they are saying that the subsequent recertification last time was a condition on the part of the NFL for settling the lawsuit. So the NFL cannot claim that the past recertification is evidence of the NFLPA's bad intentions when they were required to recertify to comply with the NFL's demands.Of course, I'm not as good a lawyer as Maurile. We went to the same school and all, but he's got a few years of experience on me.

I'd be curious about how the lawyers here think this argument will be received? Is a court likely to consider why something was done, or just look at the fact that it happened?

I have a bad feeling about the road chosen by the NFLPA. Hopefully, the courts will look at the big picture here. Does anyone believe the NFLPA is disbanding with the intent to do so long term? It should only be granted if the intent is meant to be a permanent change.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Planning for contingencies isn't the same as a done deal. What part of the deal the owners put out there on Friday was unworkable. What part required decertification?

The part where the owners refused to make any sort of case beyond, "trust us - we need you to do this." And the part where if they hadn't decertified they'd have lost every ounce of leverage they had eight hours later. And the part where it was in their interest to have Judge Doty continue to oversee the case (if the CBA had expired he wouldn't have). And the part where they have the law on their side if it goes to the courts.Your position is essentially, "the players should have caved and unilaterally surrendered because it would have made me happy."

No. My position is "the players should have been open minded about getting a fair deal and maintaining the supremacy of their sport instead of milking every last drop out they can out of it" That is exactly my point. A litigator isn't thinking big picture, health of the league. He is looking for the biggest win for his client, everything else be damned.

What good does maintaining the supremacy of the NFL do the current players? The vast majority of them will be out of the league in 5 years never to collect another paycheck from an NFL team. The league being stronger then because the current players make a sacrifice today won't help them at all.

So throw out the baby with the bathwater?Terry Bradshaw never made more than $350,000 in a season.

Terry Bradshaw's salary back in the Rozelle Rule days doesn't have anything to do with current reality.

The only purpose of mentioning Terry Bradshaw's salary is to illustrate that the future of the NFL is always built upon the backs of the current NFL players and that the players must understand that 'maximizing revenues' isn't always the best for the health of the sport even if it means less in their pocket today. If the NFL maintains its supremacy, it will pay off for future NFLPA members. If the NFLPA wants to see the books so they can start second guessing owners on business decisions (e.g. 'why aren't you selling Thursday night games', 'why don't most teams charge admission for training camp', 'how come team so-and-so hasn't sold stadium naming rights') then we are heading down a very dangerous road. The NFLPA has no business with their hands in those decisions. Yes, they may impact dollars available for current players, but they aren't/shouldn't be challengeable by the NFLPA. The owners may feel that subsidizing the NFL network is a net-growth strategy for them 20 years down the road. The owners of small market teams may feel that their market can't support charging admission for training camps and fear alienation of fans. The teams who haven't sold stadium naming rights might feel that they shouldn't/can't sell under-market to a partner in a low economy. Whatever the reasons, as long as there is a business reason for making them, then they should be unquestionable by the NFLPA. The only two questions that the NFLPA should be able to challenge are 1) are the owners just pocketing the extra revenue or 2) are they just putting it away in a fund to fight the players union. Other than that, the NFLPA should have no say.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The only purpose of mentioning Terry Bradshaw's salary is to illustrate that the future of the NFL is always built upon the backs of the current NFL players and that the players must understand that 'maximizing revenues' isn't always the best for the health of the sport even if it means less in their pocket today. If the NFL maintains its supremacy, it will pay off for future NFLPA members. If the NFLPA wants to see the books so they can start second guessing owners on business decisions (e.g. 'why aren't you selling Thursday night games', 'why don't most teams charge admission for training camp', 'how come team so-and-so hasn't sold stadium naming rights') then we are heading down a very dangerous road. The NFLPA has no business with their hands in those decisions. Yes, they may impact dollars available for current players, but they aren't/shouldn't be challengeable by the NFLPA. The owners may feel that subsidizing the NFL network is a net-growth strategy for them 20 years down the road. The owners of small market teams may feel that their market can't support charging admission for training camps and fear alienation of fans. The teams who haven't sold stadium naming rights might feel that they shouldn't/can't sell under-market to a partner in a low economy. Whatever the reasons, as long as there is a business reason for making them, then they should be unquestionable by the NFLPA. The only two questions that the NFLPA should be able to challenge are 1) are the owners just pocketing the extra revenue or 2) are they just putting it away in a fund to fight the players union. Other than that, the NFLPA should have no say.

This is the thing that I'm most interested to see play out in court. How much consideration will the courts give to current player consideration versus future player considerations? Because let's be honest, players KNOW that they have a short career and of course it's in their best interests to make as much money as possible right now. For current players, if that means making an extra $200k per person now at the expense of slower league growth and smaller salaries for NFL players in the future, that's not something that the NFLPA is really going to care about now. They'll just want to kick the can down the road and try to win another labor fight down the road.The owners have a much longer term interest in the full health of the league than the players do. Yes they want to maximize revenues now, but they also want to balance that with investment into the league for the futures in order to keep growing their yearly profits and the value of their franchises. Should the courts take into account those competing interests? Should/will the courts take into consideration that some of the potentially requested changes from the union (elimination of the draft, etc) could end up damaging the NFL brand and actually reduce future revenues, thus hurting future players?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The only purpose of mentioning Terry Bradshaw's salary is to illustrate that the future of the NFL is always built upon the backs of the current NFL players and that the players must understand that 'maximizing revenues' isn't always the best for the health of the sport even if it means less in their pocket today. If the NFL maintains its supremacy, it will pay off for future NFLPA members.

Or, more likely, the players will make their gains in the same way they have for the last 20 years - through the courts. If the NFLPA hadn't won the right of free agency via a suit the players wouldn't magically be better off today as you describe. Virtually the only time the owners have made concessions to the players is when they've been forced to.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

The only purpose of mentioning Terry Bradshaw's salary is to illustrate that the future of the NFL is always built upon the backs of the current NFL players and that the players must understand that 'maximizing revenues' isn't always the best for the health of the sport even if it means less in their pocket today. If the NFL maintains its supremacy, it will pay off for future NFLPA members.

Or, more likely, the players will make their gains in the same way they have for the last 20 years - through the courts. If the NFLPA hadn't won the right of free agency via a suit the players wouldn't magically be better off today as you describe. Virtually the only time the owners have made concessions to the players is when they've been forced to.

Fair enough. I'm not suggesting that litigation is never/was never appropriate, though I certainly think the union is overreaching with their 'transparency' demands. We shall see, but I think the NFL, and football, as a game, will be a lesser product for the fans if the players get a landslide 'win' in the courts.<div><br></div><div>Let's not lose sight of my point, which is no less valid.  What is best for the NFL long-term is not necessarily the best for the players TODAY.  There has to be some recognition of this by the NFLPA and acceptance of it.</div>

 

[roarlions]

Does anyone know if the owners justified the previous amount of revenues that were excluded from sharing with the players (the $1 billion for last year)? Seems like a lot of people accept that amount as reasonable just because the players agreed to it in the last CBA and that it shouldn't be questioned at all. Many people accept that as the baseline for the negotiations that were taking place for the new CBA, but maybe the NFLPA started questioning the justification for that amount when the owners asked for another $1 billion off the top.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile,As a lawyer I certainly defer to your opinion. But I was under the impression that the NFL is prepared to contend that the decertification is a farce and a clear violation of labor laws because the union intends to recertify immediately after pursuing their antitrust suit. Again, you would know better than I, but I've heard three lawyers on ESPN and NFL Radio saying that even if Doty sides with the players on that manner, there's strong belief than any appellate judge would find in the NFL's favor in that contention, and look at the last decertification (and subsequent recertification) as evidence of precedent of the NFLPA's real intentions.

I have never practiced in this area.But I spent some time yesterday reading cases involving sham decertifications, and I think the owners' contention that the NFLPA's decertification is a sham has little hope of winning as long as the NFLPA does everything right procedurally — if the players sign a petition to decertify, if the NFLPA no longer represents players in grievances, no longer collects dues from players, no longer participates in negotiations with the owners, and adopts new bylaws saying that it is no longer a labor union (thus forgoing its tax-exempt status), etc. I imagine that the NFLPA will in fact do everything right procedurally.The players have a statutory right to organize and bargain collectively if they want to; and they also have a statutory right to bargain individually if they want to, by decertifying and forgoing collective bargaining. Neither the employers nor the government can force a group of employees to form or maintain a union if they don't want to.The owners issued a statement saying that the NFLPA's decertification is a sham because it's a transparent attempt by the players simply to negotiate a greater sum of money. But they cite no authority for the proposition that wanting more money is an invalid reason to decertify. Trying to get more money, I would think, is the quintessentially appropriate reason to choose collective bargaining over individual bargaining or vice versa.Do the players intend to re-certify immediately after pursuing their antitrust claims? I'm not sure what evidence is available that they do. (Their previous recertification isn't evidence for the reason Orange Crush stated earlier in the thread.) But even if the owners come up with good evidence along those lines, that's a factual question. It's the kind of thing appellate courts routinely defer to district courts on. It's very unlikely that an appellate court would reverse Judge Doty on a question of fact.I think it will be difficult for the owners to defeat the players' antitrust challenges either at trial or on appeal. But like I said, it's not my practice area.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

update:

The federal antitrust lawsuit filed by players against the NFL has been reassigned to a third judge, NFL Network confirmed Monday.

The case first went to U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in Minnesota last Friday. Kyle recused himself for unspecified reasons and it was reassigned to Judge Patrick Schiltz. On Monday, Schiltz cited a conflict of interest because he represented the NFL in several cases as a private practice attorney. The case then went to Judge Susan Richard Nelson.

The motion for a preliminary injunction that would block an owners' lockout of players is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. CT on April 6, according to Nelson's office.

Deb Bell, interim division manager in the court clerk's office in Minneapolis, says cases are randomly assigned by computer.

The case may still be reassigned. The players want the case before Judge David Doty, who has overseen NFL labor matters since the early 1990s. Bell says that would be up to the judges to decide.

 

[Road Dogg]

does this mean anything??

WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL’s antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.

Conyers’ move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players’ union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It means baseball.

 

[Road Dogg]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It means baseball.

I'd think that's bad for the owners. Well many of them at least.both sides shoulda come to a deal before going to courts, who the hell knows what'll happen in the courts or congress

 

[Idiot Boxer]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It means baseball.

I'd think that's bad for the owners. Well many of them at least.both sides shoulda come to a deal before going to courts, who the hell knows what'll happen in the courts or congress

Bad for smaller markets. The differences won't be so drastic as baseball because we are talking about a 16 game season vs. 160, but still, this will favor larger markets.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It means baseball.

I'd think that's bad for the owners. Well many of them at least.both sides shoulda come to a deal before going to courts, who the hell knows what'll happen in the courts or congress

The Dallas Cowboys football network!I would also hope that a congressmen from Michigan would have better things to do than worry about professional sports work stopage. Maybe he can go visit his criminal wife in jail

 

[Orange Crush]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It only means anything if a) the Republican in charge of whatever committee has oversight of this allows the vote to proceed, and b) if a majority in Congress agrees to strip the NFL of its exemption, and c) a majority in the Senate agree to strip the NFL of its exemption, and d) President Obama decides not to veto.Until all of the above happen, no, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It only means anything if a) the Republican in charge of whatever committee has oversight of this allows the vote to proceed, and b) if a majority in Congress agrees to strip the NFL of its exemption, and c) a majority in the Senate agree to strip the NFL of its exemption, and d) President Obama decides not to veto.Until all of the above happen, no, it doesn't mean anything.

so in other words, this dude needs to step off and worry about Michigan

 

[Orange Crush]

update:The federal antitrust lawsuit filed by players against the NFL has been reassigned to a third judge, NFL Network confirmed Monday.The case first went to U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in Minnesota last Friday. Kyle recused himself for unspecified reasons and it was reassigned to Judge Patrick Schiltz. On Monday, Schiltz cited a conflict of interest because he represented the NFL in several cases as a private practice attorney. The case then went to Judge Susan Richard Nelson.The motion for a preliminary injunction that would block an owners' lockout of players is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. CT on April 6, according to Nelson's office.Deb Bell, interim division manager in the court clerk's office in Minneapolis, says cases are randomly assigned by computer.The case may still be reassigned. The players want the case before Judge David Doty, who has overseen NFL labor matters since the early 1990s. Bell says that would be up to the judges to decide.

3+ weeks away?!? That's a lot longer than everyone was expecting.The case may be reassigned based on another judge having greater expertise in the matter being adjudicated (i.e. Doty), but we'll have to wait and see if that actually transpires.

 

[Cripster]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL's antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers' move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players' union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It means baseball.

I'd think that's bad for the owners. Well many of them at least.both sides shoulda come to a deal before going to courts, who the hell knows what'll happen in the courts or congress

The Dallas Cowboys football network!I would also hope that a congressmen from Michigan would have better things to do than worry about professional sports work stopage. Maybe he can go visit his criminal wife in jail

Well, I doubt it will clear the house. But it just goes to show you what can happen when you go to the courts or Washington. To me, the owners did not adequately prepare for what has happened and certainely did not count the cost.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

update:The federal antitrust lawsuit filed by players against the NFL has been reassigned to a third judge, NFL Network confirmed Monday.The case first went to U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in Minnesota last Friday. Kyle recused himself for unspecified reasons and it was reassigned to Judge Patrick Schiltz. On Monday, Schiltz cited a conflict of interest because he represented the NFL in several cases as a private practice attorney. The case then went to Judge Susan Richard Nelson.The motion for a preliminary injunction that would block an owners' lockout of players is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. CT on April 6, according to Nelson's office.Deb Bell, interim division manager in the court clerk's office in Minneapolis, says cases are randomly assigned by computer.The case may still be reassigned. The players want the case before Judge David Doty, who has overseen NFL labor matters since the early 1990s. Bell says that would be up to the judges to decide.

3+ weeks away?!? That's a lot longer than everyone was expecting.The case may be reassigned based on another judge having greater expertise in the matter being adjudicated (i.e. Doty), but we'll have to wait and see if that actually transpires.

I thought it was rather quick actually, dont the courts move at a rather slow pace

 

[Orange Crush]

From Mike Florio at profootballtalk.com:

Making sense of the financial divide between the two sides

For most of the past two years, the financial divide between the NFL and the players association consisted of the NFL wanting to double its current off-the-top expense credit from $1 billion per year to $2 billion annually, with the players continuing to get 59.6 percent of everything beyond the first $2 billion.

At one point earlier this year, the players offered to take 50 cents of every dollar earned, without regard to expense credits or anything else that would be deducted before getting out the carving knife. The proposal represented a lower percentage of total dollars than the players have received in each year since 2002.

We’re told that the discussions eventually began to focus on the team-per-team salary cap numbers, via a process that the parties referred to as “pegging the cap.” A twist on the proposal based on taking a percentage of all dollars, negotiating a specific per-year cap figure sidesteps the issue of removing certain types of expenses before cutting up the remaining money, which in turn gives the players one less reason to be suspicious regarding the league’s accounting of credited expenses under the off-the-top formula.

The summary of the league’s proposal contains scant details regarding the financial proposal, pointing out only that the owners agreed to the union’s proposed cap number of $161 million for 2014. (Which, of course, implies that there are details about the financial proposal that the league decided didn’t fit within the whole “players bad/owners good” P.R. spin.)

The stumbling block came much earlier than 2014. We’re told that, for 2011, the NFL had offered a per-team cap of $131 million and the players had asked for $151 million. The $20 million cap represented the $640 million difference that existed before Friday.

But there was more. Under a mechanism known as a “true-up,” the two sides were negotiating any additional payments made based on financial performance of the league in comparison to a league projection of four-percent revenue growth in 2011, four-percent growth in 2012, 2.5-percent growth in 2013 (a seemingly low amount given that new TV deals will kick in that year), and 2.5-percent growth in 2013.

Bear with us here because this gets complicated. (OK, it gets more complicated.) The players reasonably wanted more money if the actual performance exceeds the league’s projection that gave rise to the proposed cap numbers. As we understand it, the owners would have retained the next 1.5 percent above the annual projection, and the two sides were negotiating the amount of the split over and above that amount.

For example, if the league were to have revenue growth of 10 percent in a year during which the projection was four percent, the next 1.5 percent would have gone to the owners and the remaining 4.5 percent would have been shared between the two parties.

On Friday, the league offered to “split the difference” between $131 million and $151 million, with a figure of $141 million. We’re told, however, that the Friday offer omitted any additional money based on whether the league exceeds its projected revenue growth.

So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.

The players’ characterization of the issues that prevented a deal address this point, explaining that the “NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.”

As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.

That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

We’ll ask NFL general counsel Jeff Pash about this and other issues during his Monday visit to PFT Live. Though we’d prefer 10 hours instead of 10 minutes, we’ll take whatever we can get.

UPDATE: The $141 million cap number offered by the league includes salary and benefits. As Howard Balzer of 101espn.com and The Sports Xchange points out, this is less than the $149.3 million salary-and-benefits number from 2009, but more than the $138.3 million number from 2008.

What seems really odd here is that apparently the owners were trying to negotiate actual salary cap numbers for at least the next 4 years, and not based on percentage of revenue. And they were doing so with very low projected revenue growth. It's hard to see revenue growing at just 2.5% per year when tv ratings are at record highs (which is especially economically valuable in this day and age with a fractured television audience split among 100+ channels). And that's the NFL's last "best" offer that they were afraid of the players taking? No wonder the players balked.

 

[Orange Crush]

update:The federal antitrust lawsuit filed by players against the NFL has been reassigned to a third judge, NFL Network confirmed Monday.The case first went to U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in Minnesota last Friday. Kyle recused himself for unspecified reasons and it was reassigned to Judge Patrick Schiltz. On Monday, Schiltz cited a conflict of interest because he represented the NFL in several cases as a private practice attorney. The case then went to Judge Susan Richard Nelson.The motion for a preliminary injunction that would block an owners' lockout of players is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. CT on April 6, according to Nelson's office.Deb Bell, interim division manager in the court clerk's office in Minneapolis, says cases are randomly assigned by computer.The case may still be reassigned. The players want the case before Judge David Doty, who has overseen NFL labor matters since the early 1990s. Bell says that would be up to the judges to decide.

3+ weeks away?!? That's a lot longer than everyone was expecting.The case may be reassigned based on another judge having greater expertise in the matter being adjudicated (i.e. Doty), but we'll have to wait and see if that actually transpires.

I thought it was rather quick actually, dont the courts move at a rather slow pace

For everything other than preliminary injunctions yes. This move to block the lockout was initially thought to be heard and decided sometime this week (allowing free agency to begin immediately afterwards if the players won).

 

[Jason Wood]

update:The federal antitrust lawsuit filed by players against the NFL has been reassigned to a third judge, NFL Network confirmed Monday.The case first went to U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in Minnesota last Friday. Kyle recused himself for unspecified reasons and it was reassigned to Judge Patrick Schiltz. On Monday, Schiltz cited a conflict of interest because he represented the NFL in several cases as a private practice attorney. The case then went to Judge Susan Richard Nelson.The motion for a preliminary injunction that would block an owners' lockout of players is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. CT on April 6, according to Nelson's office.Deb Bell, interim division manager in the court clerk's office in Minneapolis, says cases are randomly assigned by computer.The case may still be reassigned. The players want the case before Judge David Doty, who has overseen NFL labor matters since the early 1990s. Bell says that would be up to the judges to decide.

3+ weeks away?!? That's a lot longer than everyone was expecting.The case may be reassigned based on another judge having greater expertise in the matter being adjudicated (i.e. Doty), but we'll have to wait and see if that actually transpires.

I thought it was rather quick actually, dont the courts move at a rather slow pace

Thanks MT

 

[roarlions]

What seems really odd here is that apparently the owners were trying to negotiate actual salary cap numbers for at least the next 4 years, and not based on percentage of revenue. And they were doing so with very low projected revenue growth. It's hard to see revenue growing at just 2.5% per year when tv ratings are at record highs (which is especially economically valuable in this day and age with a fractured television audience split among 100+ channels). And that's the NFL's last "best" offer that they were afraid of the players taking? No wonder the players balked.

Thanks for all the info., glad to see some details are starting to emerge. Makes a lot of sense that one major problem in the negotiations was how to split "excess" earnings above those projected by the league.

 

[GroveDiesel]

does this mean anything??WASHINGTON (AP)—A senior House Democrat says he will seek to eliminate the NFL’s antitrust exemption for broadcasting contracts.Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he will introduce legislation later Monday to strip the league of its exemption. That exemption, which allows the NFL to sign TV contracts on behalf of all teams, helped to transform the league into the economic powerhouse it is today.Conyers’ move follows the collapse of talks between the players and owners, threatening the 2011 season. The players’ union has decertified, players have filed antitrust lawsuits, and the league has staged a lockout of players.

It means that Conyers has never let a chance go by to get his name associated with some big public issue. Can you imagine Congress diving into this issue between billionaire and millionaire athletes when our country has so many other serious problems? He should be getting roasted for even bringing up the possibility.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Conyers is a Democrat from Michigan. One in six workers in Michigan is in a union. He's pretty much obligated to come out and say something that the folks supporting the NFLPA will like. It will amount to nothing.

 

[BassNBrew]

From Mike Florio at profootballtalk.com:

Making sense of the financial divide between the two sides

For most of the past two years, the financial divide between the NFL and the players association consisted of the NFL wanting to double its current off-the-top expense credit from $1 billion per year to $2 billion annually, with the players continuing to get 59.6 percent of everything beyond the first $2 billion.

At one point earlier this year, the players offered to take 50 cents of every dollar earned, without regard to expense credits or anything else that would be deducted before getting out the carving knife. The proposal represented a lower percentage of total dollars than the players have received in each year since 2002.

We’re told that the discussions eventually began to focus on the team-per-team salary cap numbers, via a process that the parties referred to as “pegging the cap.” A twist on the proposal based on taking a percentage of all dollars, negotiating a specific per-year cap figure sidesteps the issue of removing certain types of expenses before cutting up the remaining money, which in turn gives the players one less reason to be suspicious regarding the league’s accounting of credited expenses under the off-the-top formula.

The summary of the league’s proposal contains scant details regarding the financial proposal, pointing out only that the owners agreed to the union’s proposed cap number of $161 million for 2014. (Which, of course, implies that there are details about the financial proposal that the league decided didn’t fit within the whole “players bad/owners good” P.R. spin.)

The stumbling block came much earlier than 2014. We’re told that, for 2011, the NFL had offered a per-team cap of $131 million and the players had asked for $151 million. The $20 million cap represented the $640 million difference that existed before Friday.

But there was more. Under a mechanism known as a “true-up,” the two sides were negotiating any additional payments made based on financial performance of the league in comparison to a league projection of four-percent revenue growth in 2011, four-percent growth in 2012, 2.5-percent growth in 2013 (a seemingly low amount given that new TV deals will kick in that year), and 2.5-percent growth in 2013.

Bear with us here because this gets complicated. (OK, it gets more complicated.) The players reasonably wanted more money if the actual performance exceeds the league’s projection that gave rise to the proposed cap numbers. As we understand it, the owners would have retained the next 1.5 percent above the annual projection, and the two sides were negotiating the amount of the split over and above that amount.

For example, if the league were to have revenue growth of 10 percent in a year during which the projection was four percent, the next 1.5 percent would have gone to the owners and the remaining 4.5 percent would have been shared between the two parties.

On Friday, the league offered to “split the difference” between $131 million and $151 million, with a figure of $141 million. We’re told, however, that the Friday offer omitted any additional money based on whether the league exceeds its projected revenue growth.

So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.

The players’ characterization of the issues that prevented a deal address this point, explaining that the “NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.”

As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.

That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

We’ll ask NFL general counsel Jeff Pash about this and other issues during his Monday visit to PFT Live. Though we’d prefer 10 hours instead of 10 minutes, we’ll take whatever we can get.

UPDATE: The $141 million cap number offered by the league includes salary and benefits. As Howard Balzer of 101espn.com and The Sports Xchange points out, this is less than the $149.3 million salary-and-benefits number from 2009, but more than the $138.3 million number from 2008.

What seems really odd here is that apparently the owners were trying to negotiate actual salary cap numbers for at least the next 4 years, and not based on percentage of revenue. And they were doing so with very low projected revenue growth. It's hard to see revenue growing at just 2.5% per year when tv ratings are at record highs (which is especially economically valuable in this day and age with a fractured television audience split among 100+ channels). And that's the NFL's last "best" offer that they were afraid of the players taking? No wonder the players balked.

Maybe someone else can chime in, but it seems the players want to have their cake and eat it to. Aren't they basically asking for fixed wage floor with no downside risk if revenues are down, but an increased share if revenues are up?

 

[coolnerd]

From Mike Florio at profootballtalk.com:

Making sense of the financial divide between the two sides

For most of the past two years, the financial divide between the NFL and the players association consisted of the NFL wanting to double its current off-the-top expense credit from $1 billion per year to $2 billion annually, with the players continuing to get 59.6 percent of everything beyond the first $2 billion.

At one point earlier this year, the players offered to take 50 cents of every dollar earned, without regard to expense credits or anything else that would be deducted before getting out the carving knife. The proposal represented a lower percentage of total dollars than the players have received in each year since 2002.

We’re told that the discussions eventually began to focus on the team-per-team salary cap numbers, via a process that the parties referred to as “pegging the cap.” A twist on the proposal based on taking a percentage of all dollars, negotiating a specific per-year cap figure sidesteps the issue of removing certain types of expenses before cutting up the remaining money, which in turn gives the players one less reason to be suspicious regarding the league’s accounting of credited expenses under the off-the-top formula.

The summary of the league’s proposal contains scant details regarding the financial proposal, pointing out only that the owners agreed to the union’s proposed cap number of $161 million for 2014. (Which, of course, implies that there are details about the financial proposal that the league decided didn’t fit within the whole “players bad/owners good” P.R. spin.)

The stumbling block came much earlier than 2014. We’re told that, for 2011, the NFL had offered a per-team cap of $131 million and the players had asked for $151 million. The $20 million cap represented the $640 million difference that existed before Friday.

But there was more. Under a mechanism known as a “true-up,” the two sides were negotiating any additional payments made based on financial performance of the league in comparison to a league projection of four-percent revenue growth in 2011, four-percent growth in 2012, 2.5-percent growth in 2013 (a seemingly low amount given that new TV deals will kick in that year), and 2.5-percent growth in 2013.

Bear with us here because this gets complicated. (OK, it gets more complicated.) The players reasonably wanted more money if the actual performance exceeds the league’s projection that gave rise to the proposed cap numbers. As we understand it, the owners would have retained the next 1.5 percent above the annual projection, and the two sides were negotiating the amount of the split over and above that amount.

For example, if the league were to have revenue growth of 10 percent in a year during which the projection was four percent, the next 1.5 percent would have gone to the owners and the remaining 4.5 percent would have been shared between the two parties.

On Friday, the league offered to “split the difference” between $131 million and $151 million, with a figure of $141 million. We’re told, however, that the Friday offer omitted any additional money based on whether the league exceeds its projected revenue growth.

So the league didn’t really offer to “split the difference.” The league went to the midpoint of the $20 million gap, cutting the total difference from $640 million per year to $320 million. But with no offer to provide the players with any portion of the revenue that exceeds the projected growth, the offer was something closer to the league’s prior position than the players’ prior proposal.

The players’ characterization of the issues that prevented a deal address this point, explaining that the “NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.”

As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.

That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

We’ll ask NFL general counsel Jeff Pash about this and other issues during his Monday visit to PFT Live. Though we’d prefer 10 hours instead of 10 minutes, we’ll take whatever we can get.

UPDATE: The $141 million cap number offered by the league includes salary and benefits. As Howard Balzer of 101espn.com and The Sports Xchange points out, this is less than the $149.3 million salary-and-benefits number from 2009, but more than the $138.3 million number from 2008.

What seems really odd here is that apparently the owners were trying to negotiate actual salary cap numbers for at least the next 4 years, and not based on percentage of revenue. And they were doing so with very low projected revenue growth. It's hard to see revenue growing at just 2.5% per year when tv ratings are at record highs (which is especially economically valuable in this day and age with a fractured television audience split among 100+ channels). And that's the NFL's last "best" offer that they were afraid of the players taking? No wonder the players balked.

Maybe someone else can chime in, but it seems the players want to have their cake and eat it to. Aren't they basically asking for fixed wage floor with no downside risk if revenues are down, but an increased share if revenues are up?

Honestly, if would be very much like the deal that most employeees have with their employers. Benefits (like matching 401Ks) aside, people who take a check from a business normally assume that they are going to make the $15 an hour (insert your own figure), no matter if the company is profiting or not. The downside is that most companies don't just increase employee income beyond the 4 or 5 percent even in year where revenues or profits increase dramatically say 12%. Of course, most of us are not trying to argue that we are "partnerss" with the check issuer either. BTW, I know the NFL is not a "normnal" business, but really the worker with little negative downside, but limited upside is the reality of most employment arrangements.