NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's as though you've paid no attention to the chain of events here, Cobalt. Litigation and decertification was a reaction.

I agree that it's entirely possible the players lawyered up and decided to fight once they saw owners opt out of the CBA, saw Jerry Richardson on top the Empire State Building thumping his fist on his chest, found out about the illegal TV deal designed to screw them out of hundreds of millions (and many billion going forward by making a lockout possible), and saw that the lead lawyer that had crushed the NHL players had been retained by the NFL.

But those things came first. D Smith and the decertification strategy came after. That's the "chain of events."

 

[roarlions]

What apparently has been quickly forgotten is that the owners made tremendous concessions prior to that black friday when the NFLPA made the legal maneuver to decertify. Whether or not it was a deal to accept or not is irrelevant. If they were serious about negotiating a deal, they would have taken that offer, agreed to an extension, and worked out a counter-offer.

What was so great about the deal the owners offered after weeks of negotiations had already taken place? What were the concessions the owners offered when it came to splitting the money, which is really all either side cares about? The owners proposed a drastically different method of determining how much money would be available for the players (fixed salary cap for the next 4 or 5 years rather than a % of revenue, a 10 year CBA vs. a 5 year term, projected salary caps for years 6 - 10 which would not increase even if revenues increased by more than projected, etc.). These drastic changes were supposedly presented to the players in the last day or two before the negotiations ended, after weeks of discussions that focused on modifying the current system. Seems like a bit of bait and switch to me. So let's hear about all the concessions the owners made regarding how the money was going to be split up.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The NFL is going to appeal this and win that appeal.

How?

exactly, I thought I read/herd that these kinds of decisions are rarely overturned on appeal.

 

[Hoosier16]

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

I do think this is a dangerous game of chicken though . Yes the players are bleeding a lot more than the owners today. But if this somehow gets to July, I think that pressure definitely flips to the owners. Free agency will take 10 to 14 days. There needs to be some sort of training camp / preseason. So if a deal isn't done by the last week of July, the chance of a shortened (or lost) season definitely comes in play.

I don't see it. The pressure only gets greater for the players. The owners are the ones with the ability to flip the switch. They can start the season whenever they want. The season won't get canceled. It will just be played under different rules.Once the lockout is lifted, either by choice or by the courts, FA will begin. At that point, the owners should set all of the slaves (as ADP would state it) free. Anyone whose contract is up can be a FA. This will avoid any antitrust issues. But, they will be in a FA in an environment where there is no cap, no floor, and no minimum salary. The top few percent will get paid well. Another chunk may get paid like prior years. But the vast majority, the specialty and replaceable part time players, will get paid peanuts. The kickers, long snappers, and special teams players can play for 100k. Or, they can flip burgers.This year's draft is safe. Proceed without a wage scale. Again, no antitrust issue. The owners have a year to decide whether or not they want to test the antitrust draft issue. Let the veterans watch the rookies take a bigger chunk of a smaller pie. The 1st rounders will get paid. So will the 2nd rounder. Maybe even the 3rd rounders. For the 4th through 7th rounders? Welcome to the era of 4 year contracts for a 100k a year. Or, of course, they could choose to use their degree and flip burgers.With well over half of the league unhappy with their new salaries, we'd have a new deal before the next draft.

 

[Mello]

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

I do think this is a dangerous game of chicken though . Yes the players are bleeding a lot more than the owners today. But if this somehow gets to July, I think that pressure definitely flips to the owners. Free agency will take 10 to 14 days. There needs to be some sort of training camp / preseason. So if a deal isn't done by the last week of July, the chance of a shortened (or lost) season definitely comes in play.

I don't see it. The pressure only gets greater for the players. The owners are the ones with the ability to flip the switch. They can start the season whenever they want. The season won't get canceled. It will just be played under different rules.Once the lockout is lifted, either by choice or by the courts, FA will begin. At that point, the owners should set all of the slaves (as ADP would state it) free. Anyone whose contract is up can be a FA. This will avoid any antitrust issues. But, they will be in a FA in an environment where there is no cap, no floor, and no minimum salary. The top few percent will get paid well. Another chunk may get paid like prior years. But the vast majority, the specialty and replaceable part time players, will get paid peanuts. The kickers, long snappers, and special teams players can play for 100k. Or, they can flip burgers.This year's draft is safe. Proceed without a wage scale. Again, no antitrust issue. The owners have a year to decide whether or not they want to test the antitrust draft issue. Let the veterans watch the rookies take a bigger chunk of a smaller pie. The 1st rounders will get paid. So will the 2nd rounder. Maybe even the 3rd rounders. For the 4th through 7th rounders? Welcome to the era of 4 year contracts for a 100k a year. Or, of course, they could choose to use their degree and flip burgers.With well over half of the league unhappy with their new salaries, we'd have a new deal before the next draft.

You really think the owners would choose to set up those rules rather than agree to a CBA much closer to the previous one?Sports without salary caps have proven that owners will spend well beyond their means for a chance to win. You'd see a few teams who would rapidly lose fans that would only pay lowball contracts. Then you'd have other teams that would overspend to get potential starters for other teams as their backups. In the end, the net spend would be greater on players.

 

[Orange Crush]

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

I do think this is a dangerous game of chicken though . Yes the players are bleeding a lot more than the owners today. But if this somehow gets to July, I think that pressure definitely flips to the owners. Free agency will take 10 to 14 days. There needs to be some sort of training camp / preseason. So if a deal isn't done by the last week of July, the chance of a shortened (or lost) season definitely comes in play.

I don't see it. The pressure only gets greater for the players. The owners are the ones with the ability to flip the switch. They can start the season whenever they want. The season won't get canceled. It will just be played under different rules.Once the lockout is lifted, either by choice or by the courts, FA will begin. At that point, the owners should set all of the slaves (as ADP would state it) free. Anyone whose contract is up can be a FA. This will avoid any antitrust issues. But, they will be in a FA in an environment where there is no cap, no floor, and no minimum salary. The top few percent will get paid well. Another chunk may get paid like prior years. But the vast majority, the specialty and replaceable part time players, will get paid peanuts. The kickers, long snappers, and special teams players can play for 100k. Or, they can flip burgers.This year's draft is safe. Proceed without a wage scale. Again, no antitrust issue. The owners have a year to decide whether or not they want to test the antitrust draft issue. Let the veterans watch the rookies take a bigger chunk of a smaller pie. The 1st rounders will get paid. So will the 2nd rounder. Maybe even the 3rd rounders. For the 4th through 7th rounders? Welcome to the era of 4 year contracts for a 100k a year. Or, of course, they could choose to use their degree and flip burgers.With well over half of the league unhappy with their new salaries, we'd have a new deal before the next draft.

I agree with Hoosier, here. Think back to the '87 strike. Clubs were able to put together completely new teams of replacement players and initiate games with but two weeks of prep time. Granted, the limited playbooks contributed to the poor quality product they were selling, but I think it's obvious the owners' strategy is to wait the players out. At no point will the pressure flip against the owners. They only lose if they cannot continue the lockout.

 

[3nOut]

It seems to me that no matter what the outcome is, the majority of players won't be affected salary-wise. Let's say the players win and actually get an increase in revenue percentage. Lets say the salary cap increases. Without an increase in the salary cap, most of that additional money will end up in the hands of the superstars who are already making millions. Those working for the league minimum will continue to do so. In the current situation, I don't think that the majority of players are, in essence, fighting for more money for the minority of stars. I wonder how Brady, Brees, & company would feel if the league said that they will keep the revenue % at the level it is now (which is what the players want) and will extend the current CBA with the exception of increasing the league minimum to $500K. This would spread the wealth. The top players may even have to take a pay cut to accommodate their team-mates. I wonder how unified the Players Trade Association would stay then.

 

[Hoosier16]

I cant understand why anyone ever thought the NFL was going to do anything substantial towards negotiations. The longer they can squeeze (they have far more resources) the better they feel the outcome will be for them.

I do think this is a dangerous game of chicken though . Yes the players are bleeding a lot more than the owners today. But if this somehow gets to July, I think that pressure definitely flips to the owners. Free agency will take 10 to 14 days. There needs to be some sort of training camp / preseason. So if a deal isn't done by the last week of July, the chance of a shortened (or lost) season definitely comes in play.

I don't see it. The pressure only gets greater for the players. The owners are the ones with the ability to flip the switch. They can start the season whenever they want. The season won't get canceled. It will just be played under different rules.Once the lockout is lifted, either by choice or by the courts, FA will begin. At that point, the owners should set all of the slaves (as ADP would state it) free. Anyone whose contract is up can be a FA. This will avoid any antitrust issues. But, they will be in a FA in an environment where there is no cap, no floor, and no minimum salary. The top few percent will get paid well. Another chunk may get paid like prior years. But the vast majority, the specialty and replaceable part time players, will get paid peanuts. The kickers, long snappers, and special teams players can play for 100k. Or, they can flip burgers.This year's draft is safe. Proceed without a wage scale. Again, no antitrust issue. The owners have a year to decide whether or not they want to test the antitrust draft issue. Let the veterans watch the rookies take a bigger chunk of a smaller pie. The 1st rounders will get paid. So will the 2nd rounder. Maybe even the 3rd rounders. For the 4th through 7th rounders? Welcome to the era of 4 year contracts for a 100k a year. Or, of course, they could choose to use their degree and flip burgers.With well over half of the league unhappy with their new salaries, we'd have a new deal before the next draft.

You really think the owners would choose to set up those rules rather than agree to a CBA much closer to the previous one?Sports without salary caps have proven that owners will spend well beyond their means for a chance to win. You'd see a few teams who would rapidly lose fans that would only pay lowball contracts. Then you'd have other teams that would overspend to get potential starters for other teams as their backups. In the end, the net spend would be greater on players.

No, I don't. But they aren't being offered that. The players haven't moved an inch. If the players win this court battle, and they are forced to lift the lockout, it's only going to tick off the owners more. At that point, there isn't really any reason for them to give in.The one thing the NFL has that is protected from an antitrust challenge is the ability to share TV revenue. That helps level the playing field. There will be some owners who go nuts, Snyder and Jones come to mind, but it won't be as unbalanced as baseball. In fact, having owners overspend on a few players would be good to counteract the collusion lawsuit that would likely be filed. But, the players would be much more unhappy than the owners. There wouldn't be any reason for any team to pay the current minimum for many of the players. Any marginal players about to enter FA would easily see that and be quick to want to get a CBA signed. All we need is one FA period without a minimum. The balance of the league would likely be unaffected because I don't think it would last longer than a year. Any team that overspent would have to get back under the new cap.

 

[Ksquared]

It is pretty clear some are "pro labor" while others are "pro management" when it comes to labor issues and the bias they bring to this situation. I will state my bias has become pro management over the last few years in most labor strife situations. Having been a union negotiator in two separate unions I definitely feel D Smith is the classic Union lawyer. His job is to represent the players - but he does this by litigation and not negotiations. Make enemies out of management and go after them. Same message I got both times I was a negotiator in these labor issues. They do not see the forest from the trees - the litigators only see a win through litigation, and by my observation that is where we are at(both sides are at this stage BTW, I am not absolving the owners in this area).

Issues I have with the way this situation has developed:

1. The players have basically not negotiated - their offer from August is still basically their offer on the main issues. Why - because unless the owners open their books they will not budge. That is a demand, not negotiating.

2. Open the books - extremely rarely will a company open their books to a union, but especially not when you have 32 business competing against each other. And asking for 10 years is a poison pill. There is no reason for wanting 10 years (the IRS does not even ask for this against those accused of cheating on their taxes) except to be able say "see the owners won't agree to open their books".

3. The books are already audited by an agreed upon firm, so it is not like the owners have not let the Union get the numbers they need determine their cut of the $$. This is purely a distraction and Union ploy (I know because it was a part of our strategy as a negotiating ploy that we would drop in exchange for something given up by management - it was never seriously considered that ownership would open their books).

4. The Union agreed to a opt out in the last contract that even the Union leaders have said was a big win for them, so "letting the contract stay the way it is" tells me all I need to know about who feels they had the best of the last contract. Too bad management can't use that argument with any effectiveness when labor feels they are due more.

5. The owners have tried very hard to get all the labor stuff out of the federal courts (see Judge Doty) and as I understand it was one of the reasons the NFLPA decertified before the end of the CBA.

6. The vast majority of these type of labor issues are handled by the National Labor Relations Board and that is where the Owners want this dealt with. And this is what the new disagreement about who should lead the next set of negotiations. Under federal court jurisdiction or NLRB jurisdiction. And realize this is a major point that will last for decades in all likely hood (see the Reggie White lawsuit/CBA and Judge Doty presiding over the CBA almost 20 years later)

Who knows how this will end up turning out or how long it could take, but it is hard for just about anyone to not recognize the economy is very different than it was 3-4 years ago and looks to be into the future. I am sure the Owner's business model needs to change just like every other business right now. From my perspective, will the Union actually negotiate or just stay with the same demands - "open the books or ..."

 

[VTjkru]

It is pretty clear some are "pro labor" while others are "pro management" when it comes to labor issues and the bias they bring to this situation. I will state my bias has become pro management over the last few years in most labor strife situations. Having been a union negotiator in two separate unions I definitely feel D Smith is the classic Union lawyer. His job is to represent the players - but he does this by litigation and not negotiations. Make enemies out of management and go after them. Same message I got both times I was a negotiator in these labor issues. They do not see the forest from the trees - the litigators only see a win through litigation, and by my observation that is where we are at(both sides are at this stage BTW, I am not absolving the owners in this area).<more>

I would say I'm "pro labor" but it was a nice read. My only issue is that I dont see this as a labor vs management issue. It's hard to compare the NFL to other industries. The NFLPA and the owners are essentially partners in the whole scheme of things. Without the best athletes in the world, the NFL doesnt exist and flourish like it does. Opening of the books is a sign of good faith to me.

 

[David Dodds]

Whether you agree with should the books be opened or not, can we all agree to this?

- The owners claim they need more money off the top (that the $1B is insufficient)

- The owners have not demonstrated why they need this additional money

I have said early on that I really think this fight is about the NFL Network. I believe that network is losing money (possibly a lot of money). If the NFL Network closed shop and sold the rights to the Thursday games, that would change the balance of revenue $750M to $1B per year.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Whether you agree with should the books be opened or not, can we all agree to this?- The owners claim they need more money off the top (that the $1B is insufficient)- The owners have not demonstrated why they need this additional moneyI have said early on that I really think this fight is about the NFL Network. I believe that network is losing money (possibly a lot of money). If the NFL Network closed shop and sold the rights to the Thursday games, that would change the balance of revenue $750M to $1B per year.

How in the world in the NFL network losing money and the Big10 next work is making money?

 

[Mello]

It is pretty clear some are "pro labor" while others are "pro management" when it comes to labor issues and the bias they bring to this situation. I will state my bias has become pro management over the last few years in most labor strife situations. Having been a union negotiator in two separate unions I definitely feel D Smith is the classic Union lawyer. His job is to represent the players - but he does this by litigation and not negotiations. Make enemies out of management and go after them. Same message I got both times I was a negotiator in these labor issues. They do not see the forest from the trees - the litigators only see a win through litigation, and by my observation that is where we are at(both sides are at this stage BTW, I am not absolving the owners in this area).Issues I have with the way this situation has developed:1. The players have basically not negotiated - their offer from August is still basically their offer on the main issues. Why - because unless the owners open their books they will not budge. That is a demand, not negotiating.2. Open the books - extremely rarely will a company open their books to a union, but especially not when you have 32 business competing against each other. And asking for 10 years is a poison pill. There is no reason for wanting 10 years (the IRS does not even ask for this against those accused of cheating on their taxes) except to be able say "see the owners won't agree to open their books". 3. The books are already audited by an agreed upon firm, so it is not like the owners have not let the Union get the numbers they need determine their cut of the $$. This is purely a distraction and Union ploy (I know because it was a part of our strategy as a negotiating ploy that we would drop in exchange for something given up by management - it was never seriously considered that ownership would open their books).4. The Union agreed to a opt out in the last contract that even the Union leaders have said was a big win for them, so "letting the contract stay the way it is" tells me all I need to know about who feels they had the best of the last contract. Too bad management can't use that argument with any effectiveness when labor feels they are due more.5. The owners have tried very hard to get all the labor stuff out of the federal courts (see Judge Doty) and as I understand it was one of the reasons the NFLPA decertified before the end of the CBA.6. The vast majority of these type of labor issues are handled by the National Labor Relations Board and that is where the Owners want this dealt with. And this is what the new disagreement about who should lead the next set of negotiations. Under federal court jurisdiction or NLRB jurisdiction. And realize this is a major point that will last for decades in all likely hood (see the Reggie White lawsuit/CBA and Judge Doty presiding over the CBA almost 20 years later)Who knows how this will end up turning out or how long it could take, but it is hard for just about anyone to not recognize the economy is very different than it was 3-4 years ago and looks to be into the future. I am sure the Owner's business model needs to change just like every other business right now. From my perspective, will the Union actually negotiate or just stay with the same demands - "open the books or ..."

Good post. I'm biased toward the players, but I'm just looking at it as if I was a player. If my bosses told me we're cutting your pay and didn't justify why, I'd be upset. Difference is, in the real world I can tell my boss to jump in a lake and find a job elsewhere in the same industry. Here, the players' only option is to go to court or sit out and not get paid at all.1. So if they players would have made a ridiculous offer in August, then made more reasonable demands recently, would that be negotiating? Seems like semantics to me. 2. 32 separate companies for an industry are rarely colluding with each other to control the market. 10 years is a bit extreme, but offering 3 or 5 years would have been reasonable. 3. Maybe, but I don't have too much sympathy for the owners not opening their books.5. The players' only other option was to follow the NHLPA's plan of staying a union. That led to the players losing badly and an entire season being lost.On the opening the books part, my issue is that while the economy has had problems the NFL is still the most successful sports league in the world from everything we know. Nothing is indicating that ownership as a whole is struggling to keep things going. The few teams that might be struggling are in markets that can't support a team or have owners who are incompetent. I'd need to hear a very, very convincing case as to why opting out of the previous CBA and trying to impose a new model on the players was necessary. Crying over "having" to pay for new stadiums doesn't cut it. I still think this dispute has come about more because the owners can't figure out how to agree to a system of revenue sharing they can all live with. So instead of dividing their current piece pie differently, it was easier to try to take some of the pie from the players.

 

[David Dodds]

Whether you agree with should the books be opened or not, can we all agree to this?- The owners claim they need more money off the top (that the $1B is insufficient)- The owners have not demonstrated why they need this additional moneyI have said early on that I really think this fight is about the NFL Network. I believe that network is losing money (possibly a lot of money). If the NFL Network closed shop and sold the rights to the Thursday games, that would change the balance of revenue $750M to $1B per year.

How in the world in the NFL network losing money and the Big10 next work is making money?

I have seen it printed a bunch of times that the NFL Network is losing money. I agree with you that this network (with it's Thursday games) should not be losing money. Those games alone are worth a small fortune on the open market. But if the network is losing money (as I suspect it is), you can see why both sides feel they are right. The owners want more money off the top to cover these losses as they feel the network is important to promote their league. The players would likely shut down the network and sell the games in the open market (increasing revenue to everyone).

 

[Ksquared]

Mello

I agree that the players need some type of validation (if nothing else to save face) that this extra $$ is necessary for the owners to "grow the game". I see the following issues impacting the NFL and Owners especially in the next few years and at the root of their concerns they will not "profit" as much as they feel they should:

1) Little to no public funding of stadiums (If you did not get a newer stadium in the last 10 years or so, you will have difficulty keeping up with the stadiums that have 20X more luxury boxes - which is where the real money is at)- may not be as big of an issue the next couple of years - see #6 below

2) "Growing the Game" - this could be the NFL network and other endeavors to promote the NFL are costing extensive money, but when they make a profit the players get a cut. They are not putting up risk $$ to cover initial costs.

3) Dramatic increase in labor costs - I don't remember the number for certain, but I believe the labor costs have increased 42% in the last four years.

4) Medical costs - not just retired players, but the active players coverage costs are supposed to balloon out of sight. Ross Tucker - NFL radio (who is strongly on the players side) did some analysis of future medical coverage costs for football players and it was an astronomical increase - something like $10,000/month/player in a few more years. That would be over $50 million per year for a 53 man squad not counting all the others required to be covered.

5) Potential liabilities 10 yrs or more from now from concussions and other ailments could put the NFL under $100 million suits yearly. I think we all realize that especially head trauma has been ignored for a long time and the long term affects are starting tally up. I am sure the owners are bracing for a slew of potential liability lawsuits in the near future.

6) The economy is not really showing signs of growing and ownership may be in the same fear that many other businesses are about the future. Proceed very cautiously because things could go "south" quickly. I am sure even before the activities the last 2 months by these two sides the economy was going to affect especially the luxury box rentals. Now I am certain whether this gets resolved moderately soon or not, both sides are going to see a lot less revenue in the next couple of years at least.

I can see all these issues causing the owners to need to adjust their "business" model they have used in the past. The two issues that have caused me to side more with the owners are 1) I believe if the Ownership side wins - the NFL will not change greatly from what it is now, if they lose in this it will be the "Wild Wild West" as has been described by some, 2)D Smith and the Union leadership are only looking out for the current NFL players. If they have to decide between something that will give the players more $$ now but hurt the NFL and revenues in the future, that is not a major worry. Very similar to what we are dealing with on all the govt spending levels, short sighted decisions that help the hear and now, but hurt long term. My biggest fear is the NFL becoming similar to MLB (and no I do not want to rehash that argument) after this is finished.

 

[roarlions]

From post #493 back on page 10 of this thread:

"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."

Those seem like fairly low projections for revenue growth over the next 4 years, so it seems as though the owners were concerned (rightly or wrongly) about slower revenue growth in the near term. As the article by Florio points out, the players were not only willing to agree to the salary cap figures based on those growth rates, but had also agreed to not seek any additional payments if revenue grew by as much as 1.5 percentage points more than projected by the owners each year. The players were seeking additional payments above the salary cap only if revenues grew by more than 1.5 percentage points over the projected growth rates. The last proposal from the owners before the union decertified did not offer the players any additional payments if actual revenue growth was greater than the growth projected by the owners.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Whether you agree with should the books be opened or not, can we all agree to this?- The owners claim they need more money off the top (that the $1B is insufficient)- The owners have not demonstrated why they need this additional moneyI have said early on that I really think this fight is about the NFL Network. I believe that network is losing money (possibly a lot of money). If the NFL Network closed shop and sold the rights to the Thursday games, that would change the balance of revenue $750M to $1B per year.

How in the world in the NFL network losing money and the Big10 next work is making money?

I have seen it printed a bunch of times that the NFL Network is losing money. I agree with you that this network (with it's Thursday games) should not be losing money. Those games alone are worth a small fortune on the open market. But if the network is losing money (as I suspect it is), you can see why both sides feel they are right. The owners want more money off the top to cover these losses as they feel the network is important to promote their league. The players would likely shut down the network and sell the games in the open market (increasing revenue to everyone).

This is the epicenter of the 'maximizing present value' vs. 'growing the league' front. The reason the players want the books open (in my opinion) is to call into question things like the NFL Network and the NFL's investment in overseas marketing. These two items are the biggest losers in terms of maximizing present value but in the eyes of the owners they are important pieces of the puzzle for growth. I feel pretty strongly that the players should have no voice in how the owners invest money so long as the choices make good business sense and are not designed to intentionally defraud players of income (see the lockout fund/tv deal).

 

[Idiot Boxer]

MelloI agree that the players need some type of validation (if nothing else to save face) that this extra $ is necessary for the owners to "grow the game". I see the following issues impacting the NFL and Owners especially in the next few years and at the root of their concerns they will not "profit" as much as they feel they should: 1) Little to no public funding of stadiums (If you did not get a newer stadium in the last 10 years or so, you will have difficulty keeping up with the stadiums that have 20X more luxury boxes - which is where the real money is at)- may not be as big of an issue the next couple of years - see #6 below2) "Growing the Game" - this could be the NFL network and other endeavors to promote the NFL are costing extensive money, but when they make a profit the players get a cut. They are not putting up risk $ to cover initial costs.3) Dramatic increase in labor costs - I don't remember the number for certain, but I believe the labor costs have increased 42% in the last four years.4) Medical costs - not just retired players, but the active players coverage costs are supposed to balloon out of sight. Ross Tucker - NFL radio (who is strongly on the players side) did some analysis of future medical coverage costs for football players and it was an astronomical increase - something like $10,000/month/player in a few more years. That would be over $50 million per year for a 53 man squad not counting all the others required to be covered. 5) Potential liabilities 10 yrs or more from now from concussions and other ailments could put the NFL under $100 million suits yearly. I think we all realize that especially head trauma has been ignored for a long time and the long term affects are starting tally up. I am sure the owners are bracing for a slew of potential liability lawsuits in the near future.6) The economy is not really showing signs of growing and ownership may be in the same fear that many other businesses are about the future. Proceed very cautiously because things could go "south" quickly. I am sure even before the activities the last 2 months by these two sides the economy was going to affect especially the luxury box rentals. Now I am certain whether this gets resolved moderately soon or not, both sides are going to see a lot less revenue in the next couple of years at least.I can see all these issues causing the owners to need to adjust their "business" model they have used in the past. The two issues that have caused me to side more with the owners are 1) I believe if the Ownership side wins - the NFL will not change greatly from what it is now, if they lose in this it will be the "Wild Wild West" as has been described by some, 2)D Smith and the Union leadership are only looking out for the current NFL players. If they have to decide between something that will give the players more $ now but hurt the NFL and revenues in the future, that is not a major worry. Very similar to what we are dealing with on all the govt spending levels, short sighted decisions that help the hear and now, but hurt long term. My biggest fear is the NFL becoming similar to MLB (and no I do not want to rehash that argument) after this is finished.

Exactly how I feel.

 

[cobalt_27]

Whether you agree with should the books be opened or not, can we all agree to this?- The owners claim they need more money off the top (that the $1B is insufficient)- The owners have not demonstrated why they need this additional moneyI have said early on that I really think this fight is about the NFL Network. I believe that network is losing money (possibly a lot of money). If the NFL Network closed shop and sold the rights to the Thursday games, that would change the balance of revenue $750M to $1B per year.

How in the world in the NFL network losing money and the Big10 next work is making money?

I have seen it printed a bunch of times that the NFL Network is losing money. I agree with you that this network (with it's Thursday games) should not be losing money. Those games alone are worth a small fortune on the open market. But if the network is losing money (as I suspect it is), you can see why both sides feel they are right. The owners want more money off the top to cover these losses as they feel the network is important to promote their league. The players would likely shut down the network and sell the games in the open market (increasing revenue to everyone).

This is the epicenter of the 'maximizing present value' vs. 'growing the league' front. The reason the players want the books open (in my opinion) is to call into question things like the NFL Network and the NFL's investment in overseas marketing. These two items are the biggest losers in terms of maximizing present value but in the eyes of the owners they are important pieces of the puzzle for growth. I feel pretty strongly that the players should have no voice in how the owners invest money so long as the choices make good business sense and are not designed to intentionally defraud players of income (see the lockout fund/tv deal).

Excellent post. only thing is the players should not be participating in discussions about good or bad business. That is for the owners to decide amongst themselves. But in matters of whether they are being defrauded in some way....as it appears they were in the television contract...they absolutely have a right to that information.

 

[3nOut]

Whether you agree with should the books be opened or not, can we all agree to this?- The owners claim they need more money off the top (that the $1B is insufficient)- The owners have not demonstrated why they need this additional moneyI have said early on that I really think this fight is about the NFL Network. I believe that network is losing money (possibly a lot of money). If the NFL Network closed shop and sold the rights to the Thursday games, that would change the balance of revenue $750M to $1B per year.

Did the owners open the books the last time they negotiated the CBA and asked for $1B 'off the top'? Did they demonstrate their need back then? If I was an owner I would respond to their request by saying that you trusted us enough before to know how much we needed to run our business and look to where we have gorwn. Trust us again and see continued growth which in turn results in more money for you. even a small 'paycut' now can result in the a bigger payout later. Short-term vs. Long-term'.

 

[cobalt_27]

The NFL is going to appeal this and win that appeal.

How?

exactly, I thought I read/herd that these kinds of decisions are rarely overturned on appeal.

Indeed, this is true. But, it's not unprecedented. And, if the NFL is successful in getting the appeal heard in 8th Circuit of Appeals, I believe they'll have the benefit of at least 13/16 judges who were appointed by Reagan/Bush/Bush administrations who are more likely going to be open to hearing the NFL's version of the events. They may be particularly interested in learning more about the NFLPA's tactic of decertification-->litigation and likely will be more open to the interpretation that it's a sham.

 

[Hoosier16]

It is pretty clear some are "pro labor" while others are "pro management" when it comes to labor issues and the bias they bring to this situation. I will state my bias has become pro management over the last few years in most labor strife situations. Having been a union negotiator in two separate unions I definitely feel D Smith is the classic Union lawyer. His job is to represent the players - but he does this by litigation and not negotiations. Make enemies out of management and go after them. Same message I got both times I was a negotiator in these labor issues. They do not see the forest from the trees - the litigators only see a win through litigation, and by my observation that is where we are at(both sides are at this stage BTW, I am not absolving the owners in this area).

<more>

I would say I'm "pro labor" but it was a nice read. My only issue is that I dont see this as a labor vs management issue. It's hard to compare the NFL to other industries. The NFLPA and the owners are essentially partners in the whole scheme of things. Without the best athletes in the world, the NFL doesnt exist and flourish like it does. Opening of the books is a sign of good faith to me.

This thinking bothers me the most in this whole ordeal. The players are not partners with the owners. If they were, the owners wouldn't be called owners. The only people who believe this are the players. If they were truly partneers, they would share in the risk. The players have no risk. They are employees. Without these particular athletes, the NFL doesn't fold. In 4 years, there will be another crop of "best athletes in the world" and the current ones will be gone. A partner would still be there, sharing the risk.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It is pretty clear some are "pro labor" while others are "pro management" when it comes to labor issues and the bias they bring to this situation. I will state my bias has become pro management over the last few years in most labor strife situations. Having been a union negotiator in two separate unions I definitely feel D Smith is the classic Union lawyer. His job is to represent the players - but he does this by litigation and not negotiations. Make enemies out of management and go after them. Same message I got both times I was a negotiator in these labor issues. They do not see the forest from the trees - the litigators only see a win through litigation, and by my observation that is where we are at(both sides are at this stage BTW, I am not absolving the owners in this area).

<more>

I would say I'm "pro labor" but it was a nice read. My only issue is that I dont see this as a labor vs management issue. It's hard to compare the NFL to other industries. The NFLPA and the owners are essentially partners in the whole scheme of things. Without the best athletes in the world, the NFL doesnt exist and flourish like it does. Opening of the books is a sign of good faith to me.

This thinking bothers me the most in this whole ordeal. The players are not partners with the owners. If they were, the owners wouldn't be called owners. The only people who believe this are the players. If they were truly partneers, they would share in the risk. The players have no risk. They are employees. Without these particular athletes, the NFL doesn't fold. In 4 years, there will be another crop of "best athletes in the world" and the current ones will be gone. A partner would still be there, sharing the risk.

I have business partners who are talented and share no risks --- beyond the time/effort they input.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think you can also argue any group that has something close to veto power over the structure of your enterprise is a business partner.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think you can also argue any group that has something close to veto power over the structure of your enterprise is a business partner.

Having a union that negotiates with its employers does not equate to veto power. You're vastly overstating the role of the players here. They have no say in the league rules, ticket prices, schedule, draft, merchandising decisions, advertising, investments, stadium deals.Integral to the business, sure. To some degree, though even that is probably overstated. But, they are not business partners in any way shape or form.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

They have no say in the league rules, ticket prices, schedule, draft, merchandising decisions, advertising, investments, stadium deals.

 

[cobalt_27]

They have no say in the league rules, ticket prices, schedule, draft, merchandising decisions, advertising, investments, stadium deals.

I should have been clear and said "veto power" though I don't even know to what extent they have much say in any of the things you bolded.Point remains, if they are business partners as you imply...they are pretty impotent. As it should be.

 

[fatness]

This thinking bothers me the most in this whole ordeal. The players are not partners with the owners. If they were, the owners wouldn't be called owners. The only people who believe this are the players. If they were truly partneers, they would share in the risk. The players have no risk. They are employees. Without these particular athletes, the NFL doesn't fold. In 4 years, there will be another crop of "best athletes in the world" and the current ones will be gone. A partner would still be there, sharing the risk.

In those 4 years multiple teams would go out of business due to the income crash caused by inferior play, declining ticket revenue, declining TV revenue, etc. Unless you're going to make the case that the richer owners would help out the poorer owners, and I think we all know that would never happen. The teams that remained after 4 years would be dealing with a new group of athletes who would be unionized. And things would be where they are now, after 4 years of financial disasters and terrible football on the field.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This thinking bothers me the most in this whole ordeal. The players are not partners with the owners. If they were, the owners wouldn't be called owners. The only people who believe this are the players. If they were truly partneers, they would share in the risk. The players have no risk. They are employees. Without these particular athletes, the NFL doesn't fold. In 4 years, there will be another crop of "best athletes in the world" and the current ones will be gone. A partner would still be there, sharing the risk.

In those 4 years multiple teams would go out of business due to the income crash caused by inferior play, declining ticket revenue, declining TV revenue, etc. Unless you're going to make the case that the richer owners would help out the poorer owners, and I think we all know that would never happen. The teams that remained after 4 years would be dealing with a new group of athletes who would be unionized. And things would be where they are now, after 4 years of financial disasters and terrible football on the field.

You way overvaluing the value of the players and underestimating the draw and loyalty of the teams. There might be a small downtick, but nowhere near as drastic as you imply. Incidentally, during those 4 years, 90% of those players who were formerly making ridiculous amounts of cash playing a game will suddenly realize how much more difficult it is to make coin here in 'the real world'.

 

[David Dodds]

Been wondering about this today?

Let's say the owners offer a deal to the players that the players want to accept. How can this even be done? They decertified as a CBA. There is no group anymore. I think this is why the judge is highly recommending mediation now, because once the rulings begin, the NFL we knew is over. The courts will determine free agency, eliminate spending caps and minimums, and likely rule the draft illegal.Those actions may take years to come to fruition, but with each court ruling I think the chance to get back to today's NFL will be increasingly harder.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's say the owners offer a deal to the players that the players want to accept. How can this even be done? They decertified as a CBA.

As part of the settlement of the Brees et al. lawsuit, the players can agree to re-certify. That's what happened previously: the union decertified before the Freeman McNeal lawsuit, and then re-certified as part of the settlement of the Reggie White lawsuit. (Or something like that.)

 

[fatness]

You way overvaluing the value of the players and underestimating the draw and loyalty of the teams. There might be a small downtick, but nowhere near as drastic as you imply.

I see. So the teams that are supposedly "losing money" will lose more and that will not affect them. And the fans who care about their teams will flock to minor-league-quality games instead of NFL-quality games. Right.NFL teams' incomes will plummet below an acceptable (to the teams) level without the current players, and the teams know that.

Incidentally, during those 4 years, 90% of those players who were formerly making ridiculous amounts of cash playing a game will suddenly realize how much more difficult it is to make coin here in 'the real world'.

No resentment there.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

How can this even be done?

Mail. Sign. Return.

 

[renesauz]

You way overvaluing the value of the players and underestimating the draw and loyalty of the teams. There might be a small downtick, but nowhere near as drastic as you imply.

I see. So the teams that are supposedly "losing money" will lose more and that will not affect them. And the fans who care about their teams will flock to minor-league-quality games instead of NFL-quality games. Right.NFL teams' incomes will plummet below an acceptable (to the teams) level without the current players, and the teams know that.

Incidentally, during those 4 years, 90% of those players who were formerly making ridiculous amounts of cash playing a game will suddenly realize how much more difficult it is to make coin here in 'the real world'.

No resentment there.

I think Boxer's more right than wrong. It would be painful for a couple years, but there's more than enough talent on the street and coming out of college in the next 3 years to put together a solid league if NONE of the current players came back. And to say NONE of those current players would return is highly unrealistic. Even if only the bottom 50% of each roster returned, we'd have quality football in three years tops. If ticket prices, etc. were to drop 40-50% along with player salaries, the NFL would VERY quickly recover it's current popularity. The owners do NOT absolutely "need" these star players and their demands for "partnership".

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The owners do NOT absolutely "need" these star players and their demands for "partnership".

I don't think anyone's arguing that the players are demanding partnership. Or at least I wasn't. My argument is that when the cornerstone cost containment measures of your business (in this case the draft, salary cap, free agency and etc) are LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE without the cooperation of your employees you'd be better off considering them partners than treating them as adversaries to be cheated (that's a legal verdict, not a moral one) and defeated.Obviously if the owners win in court, I'll be proved 100% wrong. If the players win I suspect that the owners will wish they'd taken a more cooperative approach.

 

[renesauz]

The owners do NOT absolutely "need" these star players and their demands for "partnership".

I don't think anyone's arguing that the players are demanding partnership. Or at least I wasn't. My argument is that when the cornerstone cost containment measures of your business (in this case the draft, salary cap, free agency and etc) are LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE without the cooperation of your employees you'd be better off considering them partners than treating them as adversaries to be cheated (that's a legal verdict, not a moral one) and defeated.Obviously if the owners win in court, I'll be proved 100% wrong. If the players win I suspect that the owners will wish they'd taken a more cooperative approach.

OIC. I don't however, completely agree. These "cost containment" measures don't really contain costs. A few owners would spend more, a few would spend less. Superstars would make more $$$, but the common roster fillers would probably make less. The salary cap comes with a minimum too, remember. I think in the end, total dollars spent on players would be similar, but redistributed in a way which would make for a far less competitive NFL.I suspect the draftees would see a similar pattern. The very top players would see ridiculous $$$, but it would fall off quickly, as it already does. Players who are 4th+ rounders now would be offered contracts well below the current rookie minimums. Remember, the NFL would still have roster limits. The "rich" teams won't have room for these guys. They'd end up populating the rosters of the cheap teams. I suspect rookie salaries in aggregate might rise a little, but not much.Also, what's to stop the new crop of players from starting their own union??????????

 

[renesauz]

I'm still extrememly frustrated by our laws here, and by the potential application of those laws. It's assinine:

First, anti-trust laws clearly don't fit the business models of professional sports. Unlike other businesses, pro sports leagues CAN'T be successful without collaboration. It's a clear necesity for the business. Clearly, these laws were never intended to be applied to these types of businesses. Our laws supposedly provide an outlet for this by allowing colloctive bargaining with unions, but:

Labor laws were clearly written and intended for blue collar workers. They provide(d?) the common man with a way to fight back against big business and obtain fair treatment. These laws, and the power they provide the workers, were NEVER intended or designed to be used the way the NFLPA uses them. The basis of their argument is over the $$$ split, not fair working conditions. But these guys are paid MILLIONS. Even the lowest paid players make more money in a year than 99% of all other Americans. Labor Laws written for blue collar workers simply don't make as much sense in the context of employess in the top 1% income bracket. The full application of the labor laws by the players is insulting to me and many other Americans.

I know that nobody really wants politicians involved, but I think it's time to ask our politicians to construct a new group of laws specifically aimed at pro sports leagues. They need their own unique set of trust and labor rules.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Unlike other businesses, pro sports leagues CAN'T be successful without collaboration.

There are some soccer leagues in England, Germany, Spain and Italy (for starters) that completely disprove this idea. And many examples that likely disprove the idea that the owners wouldn't spend more money as well. The old NASL went belly up because the owners spent more than they made in order to try and attract superstars and win, just to pick one. And there are also examples in the soccer leagues above that have spent themselves into receivership by buying talent they couldn't afford (see the recent history of Leeds for example).

 

[Hoosier16]

Unlike other businesses, pro sports leagues CAN'T be successful without collaboration.

There are some soccer leagues in England, Germany, Spain and Italy (for starters) that completely disprove this idea. And many examples that likely disprove the idea that the owners wouldn't spend more money as well. The old NASL went belly up because the owners spent more than they made in order to try and attract superstars and win, just to pick one. And there are also examples in the soccer leagues above that have spent themselves into receivership by buying talent they couldn't afford (see the recent history of Leeds for example).

I don't know why you would use the NASL as an example. Just look at baseball. When was the last time a baseball team went belly up? The lower tier teams seem to be able to control their spending. In the NFL, it doesn't matter how bad their franchise is because they will always get that TV check. There will be a few teams that overspend the current salary cap. But the vast majority would underspend, some by a significant amount.I can't imagine very many players who would choose no CBA over having a CBA. There are too many that wouldn't get any where near the current league minimum. You ceratinly wouldn't see any $800,000+ a year long snappers. In football, only 40% of the roster are starters, and probably only half of those are significantly better than their backsups. Those are the players who will be paid well. The rest would very likely get less than what they get now (when they have to look for a new contract) . The number of unhappy players will exceed the number of happy players. I don't know how many players are needed to reform a union but they should have well over half on board within a year. This will never go 2, 3, or 4 years without a new CBA.

 

[cobalt_27]

Obviously if the owners win in court, I'll be proved 100% wrong. If the players win I suspect that the owners will wish they'd taken a more cooperative approach.

No, if the owners win, it doesn't disprove anything about your position. I happen to strongly disagree with your view, but a court ruling won't invalidate your position.What I suspect is the players are going to pay dearly if they "win." Brady will still be able to build his 22,000 square foot mansion, and all the stars will get theirs. But, if what you're hoping for is the Wild West, the mid- and low-level players are going to take a huge cut compared to what they enjoy now. It's what I don't understand strategically...it's as though they are playing chicken with the owners in hoping they get them to cave to a better deal in negotiations (using the legal maneuvering to force the owners to return with their tails between their legs). But, the worst thing that can happen is for them to win the legal rounds and then what...? They're left without a CBA, and the vast majority of players are going to get screwed.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't know why you would use the NASL as an example. Just look at baseball. When was the last time a baseball team went belly up? The lower tier teams seem to be able to control their spending. In the NFL, it doesn't matter how bad their franchise is because they will always get that TV check. There will be a few teams that overspend the current salary cap. But the vast majority would underspend, some by a significant amount.I can't imagine very many players who would choose no CBA over having a CBA. There are too many that wouldn't get any where near the current league minimum. You ceratinly wouldn't see any $800,000+ a year long snappers. In football, only 40% of the roster are starters, and probably only half of those are significantly better than their backsups. Those are the players who will be paid well. The rest would very likely get less than what they get now (when they have to look for a new contract) . The number of unhappy players will exceed the number of happy players. I don't know how many players are needed to reform a union but they should have well over half on board within a year. This will never go 2, 3, or 4 years without a new CBA.

Baseball has an anti-trust exemption and I'm not very familiar with the history or how the current rules work. So I didn't want to use that as an example. But I'm pretty sure that overall salaries have gone way up in any league where the free agency rules have been relaxed. In soccer the Boseman ruling has certainly resulted in dramatically higher wages collectively.Agree that the players do/should prefer a CBA and that's the most likely eventual outcome. I just think that they're more likely than not to gain ground compared to the CBA they had now that it's gone to court.

 

[karmarooster]

Dear thread,

I am a 1L in law school and tomorrow the sports law club at my school has a guest speaker who is apparently a lawyer of some sorts from the NFL. The email says "an NFL attorney working on the CBA"... I have no idea what this means as there is no CBA but he must be involved in some significant way. I have skimmed all 13 pages of this thread, and read some other articles on my own including some TMQ stuff.

I want to provoke an interesting discussion with said lawyer, and, respectfully, to put him on the hot seat. I find this area of law generally interesting but I am only a 1L so I have not taken any upper level courses in labor or antitrust law. The extent of my knowledge in those areas comes from the courses I've had this year and the research I've done.

So my question to the interested parties in the Shark Pool, in particular Orange Crush (who has been most beneficial in this thread by presenting legal issues in a fair and balanced light): What topics or questions should I present to this NFL lawyer? These are some of the topics I have found but please suggest modifications or alternative topics:

(1) Sally Jenkins from Washington Post article (a few pages back in this thread) + some TMQ article about stadium financing:

-Basic premise from the Jenkins article is that the NFL OWES fans a season, because of tax dollars that fund stadiums, private seat licenses, tax abatements and bonds, other free services etc.

-From TMQ - 11 stadiums have been built since 2002, public funds accounted for 54% of costs, averaging about $300 million per project

(2) American Needle - is this precedent limited only to merchandise or could it have a broader impact, ie a blueprint for restructing the NFL as a single entity

-along these lines but not mentioned in this thread, the NFL actually has not-for-profit status. To a lay person I can imagine that is almost insulting. I'm sure NFL lawyers were able to push through the not-for-profit status after considerable expense and effort, but an organization with that status that has over $9 billion in annual revenue? wow

(3) Goodell - who does he represent? He has been paid over $10 million in salary per year to oversee the league, yet has basically failed in his number 1 job objective. While its clear that he sides with the owners over the NFLPA, what about the fans? How to interpret the NFLPA request to leave Goodell out of future negotiations b/c he is a problem? It seems to me that he needs to go.

(4) NFL draft an anti-trust violation? The precedent mentioned by Orange Crush indicates this is a substantial probability but for a CBA.

Comments or thoughts? TIA

 

[Hoosier16]

(4) NFL draft an anti-trust violation? The precedent mentioned by Orange Crush indicates this is a substantial probability but for a CBA.Comments or thoughts? TIA

That's the one I'd really like to about. I'd like to know what he thinks about the argument that a draft provides more balance, which ultimately leads to a healthier league and greater competition (business, not on the field). Would that hold up?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

-Basic premise from the Jenkins article is that the NFL OWES fans a season, because of tax dollars that fund stadiums, private seat licenses, tax abatements and bonds, other free services etc.

1. One could argue that the owners morally owe the fans a season because of those things, but I'm not sure they care much about moral obligations. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that the owners legally owe the fans a season.2. The owners can't provide a season to the fans by themselves anyway. They need the cooperation of the players. As long as the owners and players can't agree to terms, it's pretty difficult to lay the blame on the owners (in any kind of legally relevant, as opposed to morally relevant, sense).

-along these lines but not mentioned in this thread, the NFL actually has not-for-profit status. To a lay person I can imagine that is almost insulting. I'm sure NFL lawyers were able to push through the not-for-profit status after considerable expense and effort, but an organization with that status that has over $9 billion in annual revenue? wow

I doubt the NFL takes in much revenue. The 32 teams take in a lot of revenue, but they are not non-profit organizations (other than the Packers).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

(4) NFL draft an anti-trust violation? The precedent mentioned by Orange Crush indicates this is a substantial probability but for a CBA.

Comments or thoughts? TIA

That's the one I'd really like to about. I'd like to know what he thinks about the argument that a draft provides more balance, which ultimately leads to a healthier league and greater competition (business, not on the field). Would that hold up?

I don't think it's a close call. The draft is almost certainly illegal (without the non-statutory labor exemption). Skip down to the "Rule of Reason" analysis in Mackey. It concerns the Rozelle Rule, which, compared to the draft, was a relatively minor restriction on free agency.

 

[nxmehta]

I may have missed it somewhere in this thread, but can someone explain to me what the difference is between opening up the books vs having an independent auditor look through them?

Why are the players insisting on open books? Is there information they are specifically looking for that they can't get through the auditor? Even if this is just a power play, is there even *hypothetical* information that they would be looking for? Can't the just ask the auditor questions about what's in there?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I may have missed it somewhere in this thread, but can someone explain to me what the difference is between opening up the books vs having an independent auditor look through them?

Why are the players insisting on open books? Is there information they are specifically looking for that they can't get through the auditor? Even if this is just a power play, is there even *hypothetical* information that they would be looking for? Can't the just ask the auditor questions about what's in there?

I think it has been shown that professional sports owners LIE about their incurred losses. The owners, during this negotiation started talking about incurred losses... thus they asked for the books. They were not taking their word on it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I may have missed it somewhere in this thread, but can someone explain to me what the difference is between opening up the books vs having an independent auditor look through them?

Why are the players insisting on open books? Is there information they are specifically looking for that they can't get through the auditor? Even if this is just a power play, is there even *hypothetical* information that they would be looking for? Can't the just ask the auditor questions about what's in there?

The auditor will just verify how profitable the teams were. If they weren't super profitable, he won't say it's because they made stupid investments on unnecessarily expensive stadium renovations. He'll just say that their expenses were really high.I think the players want to see specifics that they can publicly criticize: the team spent how much on the owner's personal jet?? Having specific stuff to criticize makes good PR sense, but it's hard to get just from an auditor's bottom line.

Just a guess . . .

 

[Hoosier16]

(4) NFL draft an anti-trust violation? The precedent mentioned by Orange Crush indicates this is a substantial probability but for a CBA.

Comments or thoughts? TIA

That's the one I'd really like to about. I'd like to know what he thinks about the argument that a draft provides more balance, which ultimately leads to a healthier league and greater competition (business, not on the field). Would that hold up?

I don't think it's a close call. The draft is almost certainly illegal (without the non-statutory labor exemption). Skip down to the "Rule of Reason" analysis in Mackey. It concerns the Rozelle Rule, which, compared to the draft, was a relatively minor restriction on free agency.

i don't think the draft issue has been tested at all by this. One point that differs from this ruling:

Second, the Rozelle Rule is unlimited in duration. It operates as a perpetual restriction on a player's ability to sell his services in an open market throughout his career.

the draft isn't unlimited in duration. Once their contract is up, they would be an unrestricted FA. I think this is a totally different issue from the Rozelle Rule.

 

[Hoosier16]

Obviously if the owners win in court, I'll be proved 100% wrong. If the players win I suspect that the owners will wish they'd taken a more cooperative approach.

No, if the owners win, it doesn't disprove anything about your position. I happen to strongly disagree with your view, but a court ruling won't invalidate your position.What I suspect is the players are going to pay dearly if they "win." Brady will still be able to build his 22,000 square foot mansion, and all the stars will get theirs. But, if what you're hoping for is the Wild West, the mid- and low-level players are going to take a huge cut compared to what they enjoy now. It's what I don't understand strategically...it's as though they are playing chicken with the owners in hoping they get them to cave to a better deal in negotiations (using the legal maneuvering to force the owners to return with their tails between their legs). But, the worst thing that can happen is for them to win the legal rounds and then what...? They're left without a CBA, and the vast majority of players are going to get screwed.

Agree completely.I took a look at the Bengals roster and used Rotoworld for contract info. Out of the 74 players listed, 21 are listed as FAs in 2011. Of the remaining 53 under contract for 2011, only 15 players are playing for an amount significantly above the league minimum. The rest, over 70%, are at or near the minimum. This is much higher than I would have expected. That means over 2/3 of the NFL players have salaries that are artificially supported by a league minimum. I wonder how quickly the players (at least that 2/3 majority) are going to want a new CBA when the GM/owner says to them, "what league minimum?". Just for reference, these guys have an average salary between 400k and 700k per year. The practice squad guys make 88k per year.