NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate a set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules?

This, to me, is a bit like the concern that if we let gays marry each other, we'll have to let people marry their dogs. It doesn't work like that.We don't have to allow either everything or nothing. There's a balancing test to determine what is allowed and what isn't. It's articulated in the Mackey case I linked to earlier in the thread. ("The focus of an inquiry under the Rule of Reason is whether the restraint imposed is justified by legitimate business purposes, and is no more restrictive than necessary.")

Not all collusion is prohibited — just collusion that is more anticompetitive than procompetitive. The teams need to agree with each other on the rules and a schedule. There's a legitimate business purpose for that, and it's not overly restrictive. A legal prohibition on unified rules will happen well after people are allowed to marry their dogs.

 

[roarlions]

I don't get your issue here. If either side doesn't agree to a CBA and the players stay decertified, then they are covered under normal labor laws just like any of us. It has nothing to do with them having some unique ability. The owners want to do things that normal business can't do though. The lockout being #1. No group of different businesses can get together and lockout every employee until they agree to lower wages. If you believe the NFL should be under different rules, then get Congress to grant them a full anti-trust exemption. Then they could lockout the players forever until they agree to whatever the owners want.

When asked for concessions, the 'employees' are seeking entitlements (to the point of alleging that they are 'partners' with the ownership) that no other employee that I am aware of has. They are demanding detail in bookkeeping that no other employee (including those working for publicly traded companies) have access to. They are demanding line-item access to books. They justify this because they are 'different' from other employee bases. They are uniquely talented and non-fungible, in their opinion. They want to be treated DIFFERENTLY than all other known employment bases...until it comes to the application of labor laws. Then they wish to be treated the same.

Anyone can ask for whatever he wants. It's fairly common for certain employees to be paid based on an accounting of various revenues or profits; and to have access to the books in those cases. If the employers don't want to open the books, then they can make some other offer, the players will counter-offer, and the process will continue until the parties can come to an agreement.There's nothing all that unusual in any of this.

I believe the audited books that the NFLPA get already include the standard numbers used in these situations. The NFLPA want to go to a line by line review of the individual franchises and for 10 years at that.

I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that the only audited information the NFLPA received in the past was revenue data and limited cost data that was only related to the calculation of certain costs the owners were allowed to deduct from revenues before sharing. I think the owners offered to share more cost data prior to the decision by the NFLPA to decertify.Does someone have a link that describes the level of detail that the NFLPA was requesting? I keep seeing references to line by line detail, but have no idea what that means.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I do not understand how it is not an anti-trust violation for just about any "collusion" to make the league happen. We are going down a road that I can see challenges of scheduling, rules, etc. You don't believe it is collusionary to fabricate a set number of employees (ie roster size), how about how many times a team gets to play in New York (for endorsement purposes in comparison to playing all/most of their games in non-big TV markets - Oakland, KC, etc), how do you have unified rules?

This, to me, is a bit like the concern that if we let gays marry each other, we'll have to let people marry their dogs. It doesn't work like that.We don't have to allow either everything or nothing. There's a balancing test to determine what is allowed and what isn't. It's articulated in the Mackey case I linked to earlier in the thread. ("The focus of an inquiry under the Rule of Reason is whether the restraint imposed is justified by legitimate business purposes, and is no more restrictive than necessary.")

Not all collusion is prohibited. The teams need to agree with each other on the rules and a schedule. There's a legitimate business purpose for that, and it's not overly restrictive. A legal prohibition on unified rules will happen well after people are allowed to marry their dogs.

And this is where I believe there is the ability to 'make law' from the bench in determining which things would violate such standard. Most believe that the draft/salary cap/salary floor all are collusive beyond the 'legitimate business purpose, no more restrictive than necessary' standard. I don't see why that is/should be the case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But I see the argument getting away from the point Boxer and I have been making - the NFLPA wants to be treated "differently" than other industries because of the reasons stated earlier.

Sorry if I missed it before, but in what way does the NFLPA* want football to be treated differently from other industries?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When I originally cited Mackey, by the way, it was because Clarett had slipped my mind. Overall, that is the better case to read if you want some insight into how antitrust law applies to the current situation. (And as a bonus, it was written by a current Supreme Court Justice.)

 

[renesauz]

Judges make wrong decisions based of personal and political views everyday, to suggest they dont makes me laugh.

On constitutional or other politically sensitive issues, you may be right.But while some fantasy football enthusiasts may view the NFL labor dispute in ideological terms, I don't think a judge will. The idea that Judge Nelson is predisposed to like the owners better than the players, or vice versa, and will make her ruling based on that bias, strikes me as so cynical as to actually be naive. JMHO.

I agree with this. Here is the problem I have, however.When discussing the fact that in no other industry in America when an employee is asked to take a paycut (again, a misnomer...more of a decrease in the amount of a payraise) can they demand to "see the books" and be taken even remotely seriously, I am met with the response that the NFL player's employment situation is not like mine. That they are uniquely talented individuals (disagree. to a point, players are fungible), that they ARE the product (disagree, the product is NFL football, they are a very important part of the product, no doubt) and that because they are uniquely talented and because they are the product, I should not be able to equate my own employment experiences (due to economic issues, my employer cut all salaries by 10%) to the employment experiences of the NFL player. Ok. Supposing I except that argument as 100% true and that the NFL players' employment situation is significantly different from my own and that I should recognize that, because of that, they should be considered differently...then why is it that we are seeking to apply the same labor laws that apply to automotive workers, teachers and coal miners to the NFL players and their relationship with their employer? It seems to me that we are being asked to recognize the unique nature of the skill and talent level of the NFL player, but refusing to recognize the uniqueness of the NFL as a whole. There is no business (outside of other professional sports) that approximates it. There is no business where the employees and the ownership and the business itself benefits from the 'collusion' of the franchises to put competitive teams on the field against each other. To say that you must apply the self-same labor laws to a situation where we've been asked to recognize that (at least with regard to half of the equation) is unique from all other employment situations is folly. It leads to this game of chicken the owners and the players are having right now, where no one, not even the players WANT the draft or some of the other controls to go away, but recognize that it is their biggest negotiation tool. If the NFL players truly want to apply the same labor laws, then they should also recognize that they are and should be treated no differently than your local teachers union. If they insist that they are, in some cognizable way, different from teachers due to their unique ability, then they (or more correctly, the courts) should also recognize that the NFL is a different animal and that the rules of free market and competition should operate differently than in other environs where the employment base is more fungible. (Maurile, I've seen you compare the NFL to Hollywood, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. Neither MGM or Paramount are made more valuable (in any tangible way) if both studio's summer blockbuster films are competitive within the movie marketplace. The success of one is totally unrelated to the other. In fact, a better argument can be made for the inverse. Additionally, there is nothing (other than scheduling shooting) that prevents Vin Diesel and Katherine Heigl from appearing in both the MGM and Paramount studio blockbusters. On the other hand, having competitive teams on the field benefits all of the teams in the NFL (baseball wonks be damned. The NFL is king for this reason) and there in no way Peyton Manning can play for both the Colts and the Raiders. Can't be done. The two situations aren't comparable.

Actually great posting. I have been trying to articulate this position for 2 months, but this is my feelings in a nutshell. And one last thing on the "Owners" opting out. Go back and look at the quotes after the previous agreement was signed. The 2 yr opt out was what the owners required to agree to sign the last agreement in large part due to the pressures the Owners feel now. How could you stop the game of football was being expressed everywhere. Well the evaluation period by these owners (not all, but many) came to agreement the last CBA was not viable for their franchises going forward. I may have even wrote that the owners were going to opt out within a month of that agreement, I believe that is when several owners started raising concerns. I know R Wilson even stated they were not allowed time to even read the whole agreement due to the pressure of the deadline so they would not miss any football. This was more of a 2 year trial that was attempted and the owners have decided it would not work going forward. Of course the players want to keep playing under the old agreement, that alone tells you which side feels they got the best of it. Since when has a labor group been quite willing to stay "pat" with the financial agreement they are under?

(one for each of you!) I despise the fact that we apply labor laws clearly not intended for this type of business.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Does someone have a link that describes the level of detail that the NFLPA was requesting? I keep seeing references to line by line detail, but have no idea what that means.

They were probably asking for everything under the sun. Just like the owners were asking for an extra billion off the top just because.It's part of a negotiation. It's not supposed to be reasonable or realistic, necessarily.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And this is where I believe there is the ability to 'make law' from the bench in determining which things would violate such standard. Most believe that the draft/salary cap/salary floor all are collusive beyond the 'legitimate business purpose, no more restrictive than necessary' standard. I don't see why that is/should be the case.

The draft and salary cap likely wouldn't make it to the Rule of Reason analysis; they are likely prohibited as per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The draft is a market division (or perhaps a group boycott); the salary cap is price-fixing. It doesn't matter how reasonable those things are; they're always illegal in the absence of an exemption.But stuff like making rules and schedules and whatnot, and even certain limitations on free agency, would not be per se violations, and thus would be analyzed according to their reasonableness.

 

[renesauz]

There's zero chance that the NFL will get any kind of anti-trust exemption through legislation. And it's ludicrous to suggest that such an exemption would be in the national interest.

I vehemently disagree to the first. As to the second, define "national interest". Will it significantly impact our economy or our relations wiuth other nations? No, but neither do half the other laws and decisions pondered by congress. I think if you think about it you'll find your definition might be just a bit too narrow.

 

[roadkill1292]

With a hard salary cap, a draft is totally unnecessary anyway. I wonder if this hasn't been the NFLPA's ultimate target all along?

ausewhilevillagersgatherpitchforks:

 

[Idiot Boxer]

And this is where I believe there is the ability to 'make law' from the bench in determining which things would violate such standard. Most believe that the draft/salary cap/salary floor all are collusive beyond the 'legitimate business purpose, no more restrictive than necessary' standard. I don't see why that is/should be the case.

The draft and salary cap likely wouldn't make it to the Rule of Reason analysis; they are likely prohibited as per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The draft is a market division (or perhaps a group boycott); the salary cap is price-fixing. It doesn't matter how reasonable those things are.But stuff like making rules and schedules and whatnot, and even certain limitations on free agency, would not be per se violations, and thus would be analyzed according to their reasonableness.

Notwithstanding the fact that I was not included in the coolest lawyer poll, I understand what per se is. I don't agree, however, that a salary cap is, per se, price fixing. Perhaps a rookie wage scale is price fixing. Each team makes the determination of how to spend the money within the cap, so I believe the argument can be made that it is not, in and of itself, price fixing. If it is, then roster limits would also fall under the umbrella of 'price fixing' and some of the slippery slope, oh my god, gary's going to marry his dog arguments can be made if Danny Snyder wants to roster 150 players.

 

[Ksquared]

And this is where I believe there is the ability to 'make law' from the bench in determining which things would violate such standard. Most believe that the draft/salary cap/salary floor all are collusive beyond the 'legitimate business purpose, no more restrictive than necessary' standard. I don't see why that is/should be the case.

The draft and salary cap likely wouldn't make it to the Rule of Reason analysis; they are likely prohibited as per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The draft is a market division (or perhaps a group boycott); the salary cap is price-fixing. It doesn't matter how reasonable those things are; they're always illegal in the absence of an exemption.But stuff like making rules and schedules and whatnot, and even certain limitations on free agency, would not be per se violations, and thus would be analyzed according to their reasonableness.

Several have commented the NFL would have a hard time arguing these rules have hurt their business and I agree completely. But that is where I see siding with the Owners, they want these competitive balance restrictions to stay and the NFLPA is trying to get rid of them. The argument should be the Owners see these changes has not being good for the health of the NFL and therefore become less popular long term. Realistically the NFLPA cares about the here and now, not the future of the game (obvious after reading some of their comments about the retired NFL player's place at the negotiations). So they want to get "theirs" and whatever happens down the road...oh well. Many industries in this country have gone by the wayside with this type of approach and I don't care for the NFL to go the same route.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's zero chance that the NFL will get any kind of anti-trust exemption through legislation. And it's ludicrous to suggest that such an exemption would be in the national interest.

I vehemently disagree to the first. As to the second, define "national interest". Will it significantly impact our economy or our relations wiuth other nations? No, but neither do half the other laws and decisions pondered by congress. I think if you think about it you'll find your definition might be just a bit too narrow.

The NFL does have political clout. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of using Congress to expand the scope of their antitrust exemption (which currently applies only to TV contracts).

 

[renesauz]

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created.

I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

Do you think Congress would ask the same questions as the NFLPA when considering such a request from the NFL? That is, the NFL seems to have fared very well under the current laws and the application of those laws. Why is it necessary to suddenly change the laws that the league has been operating under for years? What is the proof that the changes are necessary? Is this the only solution for correcting any problems the league may be encountering? Those are but a few that I would want answers to if I was responsible for determining whether to grant some kind of exemption for the NFL. And if it is granted for the NFL, what about all of the other professional sports leagues?

Some of y'all are continuing to miss the bigger point. Other labor unions do NOT have this kind of power. Generally, those employees are more easily replaced. Generally, the INDIVIDUALS in those other unions do not have individual bargaining power. Generally, those other businesses can successfully compete in the ABSENCE of a CBA.The NFL, and most of us (on both sides of this debate!) agree that THE NFL CAN NOT AND WILL NOT CONTINUE IT'S SUCCESS WITHOUT A CBA. Think about that statement for just half a minute.

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice. This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE. The fact that this position is supported by current law makes it no less offensive. Slavery and many other social ills were once legal too. I don't know about everyone else, but right and wrong, MORALITY, in my mind, are not defined by legality. When legality doesn't match, it's time to change the legalities.

 

[Ksquared]

And I am not sure how roster limits would not be a bigger anti-trust issue than many of the topics we are bringing up. There is no agreement between competitors in a regular business on who or how many can be hired. What about league wide rules. Everyone keeps ignoring this - how about discipline violations on and off the field? Will the Raiders/Bengals pick up every Pacman Jones type and administer their own discipline since I don't see how the NFL could direct it? If you do not believe all these changes will not harm the product on and off the field, I don't think your caring about the quality of the game. The focus is more related to the Anti-rich or Pro-labor philosophical positions. I firmly believe you will have several teams going with 80, 90, 100 sized rosters - the vast majority at $40,000 to $50,000 per year. More players working, but it will become like colleges used to be (many a year ago) where they would bury quality players on their squads so another school would not be able to use them.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So did Judge Nelson make her ruling yet???

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And I am not sure how roster limits would not be a bigger anti-trust issue than many of the topics we are bringing up.

Because there's a legitimate business purpose for them, and they are not overly restrictive.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created.

I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

Do you think Congress would ask the same questions as the NFLPA when considering such a request from the NFL? That is, the NFL seems to have fared very well under the current laws and the application of those laws. Why is it necessary to suddenly change the laws that the league has been operating under for years? What is the proof that the changes are necessary? Is this the only solution for correcting any problems the league may be encountering? Those are but a few that I would want answers to if I was responsible for determining whether to grant some kind of exemption for the NFL. And if it is granted for the NFL, what about all of the other professional sports leagues?

Some of y'all are continuing to miss the bigger point. Other labor unions do NOT have this kind of power. Generally, those employees are more easily replaced. Generally, the INDIVIDUALS in those other unions do not have individual bargaining power. Generally, those other businesses can successfully compete in the ABSENCE of a CBA.The NFL, and most of us (on both sides of this debate!) agree that THE NFL CAN NOT AND WILL NOT CONTINUE IT'S SUCCESS WITHOUT A CBA. Think about that statement for just half a minute.

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice. This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE. The fact that this position is supported by current law makes it no less offensive. Slavery and many other social ills were once legal too. I don't know about everyone else, but right and wrong, MORALITY, in my mind, are not defined by legality. When legality doesn't match, it's time to change the legalities.

Owners have plenty of leverage, most notably the (relatively) shallow pockets of the individual players.There's also nothing immoral about pro football changing the way it does business from time to time as a result of economic or labor pressures. Change happens, sometimes for the good, sometimes not.

But I would be very careful, gb, about advocating for Congress to take special action that would curtail the labor freedoms of some of our fellow citizens if I were you, even if they are fellow citizens with whom it is difficult to identify because of their income levels. The real immorality would be to sign on to something like that just for the sake of having our football the way we want it.

 

[Ksquared]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

 

[roadkill1292]

And I am not sure how roster limits would not be a bigger anti-trust issue than many of the topics we are bringing up. There is no agreement between competitors in a regular business on who or how many can be hired. What about league wide rules. Everyone keeps ignoring this - how about discipline violations on and off the field? Will the Raiders/Bengals pick up every Pacman Jones type and administer their own discipline since I don't see how the NFL could direct it? If you do not believe all these changes will not harm the product on and off the field, I don't think your caring about the quality of the game. The focus is more related to the Anti-rich or Pro-labor philosophical positions. I firmly believe you will have several teams going with 80, 90, 100 sized rosters - the vast majority at $40,000 to $50,000 per year. More players working, but it will become like colleges used to be (many a year ago) where they would bury quality players on their squads so another school would not be able to use them.

Discipline should be left up to the individual teams (within negotiated guidelines with the union, of course). The commissioner's office should stay out of it.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

an NFL with no draft would suck

 

[CalBear]

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice.

Prove it.

This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE.

You might want to read up on the history of trust and labor laws. The entire purpose of unions was to shut down businesses which tried to operate in collusive ways. They shut down plants, railroads and mines. They got into armed conflict with company men and workers who wanted to cross the picket line. Eventually the situation got so bad that the government realized that it needed to act to rein in the power of the monopolistic corporations. So, despite going up against the most powerful people in the country, the unions succeeded. The fact that you get to watch football on Sunday instead of go to work is directly due to the action of unions.Today, most unions have nothing like the kind of power they once had, but it is ignorant of history to suggest that unions are not "supposed" to have the power to shut down an industry.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The fact that you get to watch football on Sunday instead of go to work is directly due to the action of unions.

A bit overboard here, IMO.

 

[roadkill1292]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

an NFL with no draft would suck

They should have been working harder all along to come up with something fairer and more entertaining. They've been sitting on their asses divvying up the talent for a long time.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice.

Prove it.

This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE.

You might want to read up on the history of trust and labor laws. The entire purpose of unions was to shut down businesses which tried to operate in collusive ways. They shut down plants, railroads and mines. They got into armed conflict with company men and workers who wanted to cross the picket line. Eventually the situation got so bad that the government realized that it needed to act to rein in the power of the monopolistic corporations. So, despite going up against the most powerful people in the country, the unions succeeded. The fact that you get to watch football on Sunday instead of go to work is directly due to the action of unions.Today, most unions have nothing like the kind of power they once had, but it is ignorant of history to suggest that unions are not "supposed" to have the power to shut down an industry.

 

[roarlions]

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created.

I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

Do you think Congress would ask the same questions as the NFLPA when considering such a request from the NFL? That is, the NFL seems to have fared very well under the current laws and the application of those laws. Why is it necessary to suddenly change the laws that the league has been operating under for years? What is the proof that the changes are necessary? Is this the only solution for correcting any problems the league may be encountering? Those are but a few that I would want answers to if I was responsible for determining whether to grant some kind of exemption for the NFL. And if it is granted for the NFL, what about all of the other professional sports leagues?

Some of y'all are continuing to miss the bigger point. Other labor unions do NOT have this kind of power. Generally, those employees are more easily replaced. Generally, the INDIVIDUALS in those other unions do not have individual bargaining power. Generally, those other businesses can successfully compete in the ABSENCE of a CBA.The NFL, and most of us (on both sides of this debate!) agree that THE NFL CAN NOT AND WILL NOT CONTINUE IT'S SUCCESS WITHOUT A CBA. Think about that statement for just half a minute.

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice. This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE. The fact that this position is supported by current law makes it no less offensive. Slavery and many other social ills were once legal too. I don't know about everyone else, but right and wrong, MORALITY, in my mind, are not defined by legality. When legality doesn't match, it's time to change the legalities.

I haven't argued that anti-trust law regarding the NFL should or should not be changed. My point was that Congress is no more likely to be willing to blindly accept complaints from the NFL as is the NFLPA. Trying to change the law will likely lead to the same kind of questions being raised about the finances of NFL owners as are being raised by the NFLPA, maybe moreso. Congressional hearings can be very messy and intrusive, so the NFL would have to be prepared to divulge a lot of information that it has not been willing to divulge to the NFLPA. Just something to consider.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created.

I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

Do you think Congress would ask the same questions as the NFLPA when considering such a request from the NFL? That is, the NFL seems to have fared very well under the current laws and the application of those laws. Why is it necessary to suddenly change the laws that the league has been operating under for years? What is the proof that the changes are necessary? Is this the only solution for correcting any problems the league may be encountering? Those are but a few that I would want answers to if I was responsible for determining whether to grant some kind of exemption for the NFL. And if it is granted for the NFL, what about all of the other professional sports leagues?

Some of y'all are continuing to miss the bigger point. Other labor unions do NOT have this kind of power. Generally, those employees are more easily replaced. Generally, the INDIVIDUALS in those other unions do not have individual bargaining power. Generally, those other businesses can successfully compete in the ABSENCE of a CBA.The NFL, and most of us (on both sides of this debate!) agree that THE NFL CAN NOT AND WILL NOT CONTINUE IT'S SUCCESS WITHOUT A CBA. Think about that statement for just half a minute.

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice. This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE. The fact that this position is supported by current law makes it no less offensive. Slavery and many other social ills were once legal too. I don't know about everyone else, but right and wrong, MORALITY, in my mind, are not defined by legality. When legality doesn't match, it's time to change the legalities.

I haven't argued that anti-trust law regarding the NFL should or should not be changed. My point was that Congress is no more likely to be willing to blindly accept complaints from the NFL as is the NFLPA. Trying to change the law will likely lead to the same kind of questions being raised about the finances of NFL owners as are being raised by the NFLPA, maybe moreso. Congressional hearings can be very messy and intrusive, so the NFL would have to be prepared to divulge a lot of information that it has not been willing to divulge to the NFLPA. Just something to consider.

I don't think the changes that the NFL would be requesting would really have any bearing on the dollars portion of the negotiation, it would only take off the table the 'worst case scenario' which, by most accounts, the NFLPA wouldn't want anyways...that being anti-trust exemptions for the NFL to institute a draft, salary cap and salary floor and roster limits.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

an NFL with no draft would suck

They should have been working harder all along to come up with something fairer and more entertaining. They've been sitting on their asses divvying up the talent for a long time.

 

[roadkill1292]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

an NFL with no draft would suck

They should have been working harder all along to come up with something fairer and more entertaining. They've been sitting on their asses divvying up the talent for a long time.

Just because the draft is reasonably entertaining doesn't mean that there can't be something better and even more entertaining to replace it. But the league hasn't even tried to innovate or improve their process for the procurement of new talent.Think outside the box, man.

 

[Ksquared]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

an NFL with no draft would suck

They should have been working harder all along to come up with something fairer and more entertaining. They've been sitting on their asses divvying up the talent for a long time.

Just because the draft is reasonably entertaining doesn't mean that there can't be something better and even more entertaining to replace it. But the league hasn't even tried to innovate or improve their process for the procurement of new talent.Think outside the box, man.

Please enlighten us with your "outside the box" ideas that are not restraint of trade or collusive.

 

[roadkill1292]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

an NFL with no draft would suck

They should have been working harder all along to come up with something fairer and more entertaining. They've been sitting on their asses divvying up the talent for a long time.

Just because the draft is reasonably entertaining doesn't mean that there can't be something better and even more entertaining to replace it. But the league hasn't even tried to innovate or improve their process for the procurement of new talent.Think outside the box, man.

Please enlighten us with your "outside the box" ideas that are not restraint of trade or collusive.

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

 

[Mello]

I think a mere recognition that the business of professional sports is different from any other type of business and the economic realities of professional sports (i.e. the part that requires some 'collusion' among the teams in order to ensure a product on the field that remains 'competitive') is different from any other business model that currently exists and as such, certain exemptions from labor/trust laws might be appropriate in this case because to grant such exemptions not only allows the successful growth of all of the businesses that comprise the NFL, it also does not pose a threat to the interests for which the original anti-trust laws were created.

I'm not suggesting a broad over-arching "the NFL is exempt from all application of anti-trust law" but a well reasoned and written exemption that allows for the continuation of certain 'anti-competitive' practices makes all the sense in the world and does not (necessarily) undermine the public policy which called for the original anti-trust laws.

Do you think Congress would ask the same questions as the NFLPA when considering such a request from the NFL? That is, the NFL seems to have fared very well under the current laws and the application of those laws. Why is it necessary to suddenly change the laws that the league has been operating under for years? What is the proof that the changes are necessary? Is this the only solution for correcting any problems the league may be encountering? Those are but a few that I would want answers to if I was responsible for determining whether to grant some kind of exemption for the NFL. And if it is granted for the NFL, what about all of the other professional sports leagues?

Some of y'all are continuing to miss the bigger point. Other labor unions do NOT have this kind of power. Generally, those employees are more easily replaced. Generally, the INDIVIDUALS in those other unions do not have individual bargaining power. Generally, those other businesses can successfully compete in the ABSENCE of a CBA.The NFL, and most of us (on both sides of this debate!) agree that THE NFL CAN NOT AND WILL NOT CONTINUE IT'S SUCCESS WITHOUT A CBA. Think about that statement for just half a minute.

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice. This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE. The fact that this position is supported by current law makes it no less offensive. Slavery and many other social ills were once legal too. I don't know about everyone else, but right and wrong, MORALITY, in my mind, are not defined by legality. When legality doesn't match, it's time to change the legalities.

I can't argue with much there. Just the counter argument that if you don't allow the players this litigation route, they have zero bargaining power. The owners can shut down the league anytime they want to force a better deal for themselves and the players would have to either ride it out or accept whatever the owners want. So how could legislation be passed to make the NFL's structure 100% legal without a CBA, yet allow the players to get something close to what their fair market value would be without market restrictions like a salary cap and RFA? I can't think of one that doesn't involve far more government interference than I would be in favor of.The current setup is built on the trust that both sides will do what is best for the league as a whole. In this case, each side does not believe the other side.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans...and, of course would result in less money in the players' pockets. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

 

[roarlions]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

Wouldn't more sharing of revenue among the owners help teams to be more competitive even in a situation where there wasn't a draft and there was true free agency? I'm not advocating for that type of situation, but if "rich" teams shared more revenue with "poor" teams then even the poor teams would have money to pursue free agents and new players entering the league from college.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

So, salary cap with a ceiling and a floor? No draft, just free agency? I think that could work. I'd miss the draft. I think most of us fans would. But, so long as there is a cap and a floor, I don't see why competition would suffer if there were no draft. Hey, if that's what it takes to get a deal done, let's do it.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

So, salary cap with a ceiling and a floor? No draft, just free agency? I think that could work. I'd miss the draft. I think most of us fans would. But, so long as there is a cap and a floor, I don't see why competition would suffer if there were no draft. Hey, if that's what it takes to get a deal done, let's do it.

We'd all miss the draft, mostly because it's all we've ever known. The NFL is way overdue in coming up with something better.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

So, salary cap with a ceiling and a floor? No draft, just free agency? I think that could work. I'd miss the draft. I think most of us fans would. But, so long as there is a cap and a floor, I don't see why competition would suffer if there were no draft. Hey, if that's what it takes to get a deal done, let's do it.

Free agency isn't the only alternative to a draft. Ask the Shark Pool: an auction format can be pretty fun.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

Wouldn't more sharing of revenue among the owners help teams to be more competitive even in a situation where there wasn't a draft and there was true free agency? I'm not advocating for that type of situation, but if "rich" teams shared more revenue with "poor" teams then even the poor teams would have money to pursue free agents and new players entering the league from college.

Yes, I think you're right. The league already shares a significant portion of its revenues, as it is. My team's owner, Jerry Jones, doesn't like doing that. And, I can honestly understand his point. He's not going to build a $1 billion stadium that season ticket holders like myself absolutely love and want to go to and spend our money...he's not going to do that, if he's going to be forced to share all of the revenues his risks/decisions/investments generate. No doubt, he benefits from the NFL and the other teams that play in his stadium, which is why I philosophically support some form of revenue sharing. But, I can also understand his position, along with other owners like Bob Kraft or Arthur Blank who feel similarly, that they are sometimes subsidizing complacent owners and that they've done to innovate...should be theirs.So, yes, in principle, I think you're right. In practical terms, I'm not sure how feasible it is to get the owners to agree on more revenue sharing...and I honestly don't know if that's what's required here.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

So, salary cap with a ceiling and a floor? No draft, just free agency? I think that could work. I'd miss the draft. I think most of us fans would. But, so long as there is a cap and a floor, I don't see why competition would suffer if there were no draft. Hey, if that's what it takes to get a deal done, let's do it.

Free agency isn't the only alternative to a draft. Ask the Shark Pool: an auction format can be pretty fun.

As a convert to the auction format, myself, how ridiculously cool would that be, if shown on prime-time?But, again...how does that resolve the issue of players wanting a say in where they go?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.

So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis.

I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

So, salary cap with a ceiling and a floor? No draft, just free agency? I think that could work. I'd miss the draft. I think most of us fans would. But, so long as there is a cap and a floor, I don't see why competition would suffer if there were no draft. Hey, if that's what it takes to get a deal done, let's do it.

Free agency isn't the only alternative to a draft. Ask the Shark Pool: an auction format can be pretty fun.

As a convert to the auction format, myself, how ridiculously cool would that be, if shown on prime-time?But, again...how does that resolve the issue of players wanting a say in where they go?

Maybe the players could choose the team of their choice (and the bid that the team gave them) after the auction completed.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.

So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis.

I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

So, salary cap with a ceiling and a floor? No draft, just free agency? I think that could work. I'd miss the draft. I think most of us fans would. But, so long as there is a cap and a floor, I don't see why competition would suffer if there were no draft. Hey, if that's what it takes to get a deal done, let's do it.

Free agency isn't the only alternative to a draft. Ask the Shark Pool: an auction format can be pretty fun.

As a convert to the auction format, myself, how ridiculously cool would that be, if shown on prime-time?But, again...how does that resolve the issue of players wanting a say in where they go?

Maybe the players could choose the team of their choice (and the bid that the team gave them) after the auction completed.

Oh, that's wickedly creative. As is Cobalt's idea to televise the event. It would be the awesomest event evah. You want to make it a big event? Have 31 of the richest men in the world do a televised staredown for talent. Donald Trump would be soooo yesterday.

 

[Hoosier16]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Outside of an outright free agency talent grab (similar to college recruiting), most plans which require co-operation on the part of the franchises are at least somewhat restrictive of trade or collusive.So it's up to the league to come up with something with more appeal to a player's sense of fairness, a confidence that he's getting a fair shake at a fair starting salary. And do it in a way that's more entertaining to the fans than just announcing names every 10 minutes for three days. Maybe, just maybe, the league has to start thinking about something with an auction basis. I've got ideas but I think it's the NFL's job to get creative here, not mine. They've been taking us for granted with their dull old (and unfair) draft for 75 years now. Let's pick it up a little, owners! It's the 21st GD century.

The challenge seems to be balancing "workers' rights" with competitive balance of the league. It seems like the latter requires some mechanism that distributes/re-distributes of talent. I wonder if the league would enjoy this level of popularity (and thus salaries remain so high) if the rich teams simply got richer, while the poor teams got poorer, both in terms of the financial aspect of things, as well as the talent pool. It seems very possible to me (almost inevitable, actually) that throwing away the draft, lifting restrictions on player movement, and doing away with the salary cap would result in a worse product that would not garner as much interest from the fans. I dunno. That's just what concerns me...and I think should be a concern for the players, as well.

I think it's in the players' best interests to retain a salary cap -- and I think they think it, too, and will be happy to have it retained in the next CBA.The draft may be a different story, however. The players could easily take the stance, "Hey, you've got a huge amount of revenue sharing, you have maximum combined salaries you can pay and everybody has to pay a minimum amount of salaries -- how much more do you need to make sure you have your precious 'competitive balance?'"

I don't see how it's in any current player's best interest to not have a draft. Why would any current player want to have more of their cap money go to rookies?

 

[renesauz]

Owners have plenty of leverage, most notably the (relatively) shallow pockets of the individual players.There's also nothing immoral about pro football changing the way it does business from time to time as a result of economic or labor pressures. Change happens, sometimes for the good, sometimes not.But I would be very careful, gb, about advocating for Congress to take special action that would curtail the labor freedoms of some of our fellow citizens if I were you, even if they are fellow citizens with whom it is difficult to identify because of their income levels. The real immorality would be to sign on to something like that just for the sake of having our football the way we want it.

And I would be careful equating those "labor freedoms" with actual freedom. IN fact, I would also ask you to recognize that "labor freedoms" are not even capitalism.

 

[renesauz]

Something I just heard on NFL radio that is an interesting wrinkle. There was a theory a lot of trades would be made this year using future draft picks during the draft. But now several teams are rumored to be trying to trade their future picks on the idea that there will be no draft in the future when all of the legal battles are finished. Thus gaining in this year's draft and no cost, since there is no future draft possible. Other teams are planning on doing no trades for future picks as well due to this possible scenario.

an NFL with no draft would suck

They should have been working harder all along to come up with something fairer and more entertaining. They've been sitting on their asses divvying up the talent for a long time.

Just because the draft is reasonably entertaining doesn't mean that there can't be something better and even more entertaining to replace it. But the league hasn't even tried to innovate or improve their process for the procurement of new talent.Think outside the box, man.

OK then...how exactly COULD they divvy the talent up fairly without a system like the draft? I challnege you to come up with any such system without violating trust/labor laws as currently applied.

 

[renesauz]

Othe businesses agree to CBA's because it's easier than not doing so. The NFL has, quite literaly, no choice.

Prove it.

This gives the NFLPA a bargaining position and power never intended by the Trsut and labor laws, a power and position that I, and some others, find absolutely OFFENSIVE.

You might want to read up on the history of trust and labor laws. The entire purpose of unions was to shut down businesses which tried to operate in collusive ways. They shut down plants, railroads and mines. They got into armed conflict with company men and workers who wanted to cross the picket line. Eventually the situation got so bad that the government realized that it needed to act to rein in the power of the monopolistic corporations. So, despite going up against the most powerful people in the country, the unions succeeded. The fact that you get to watch football on Sunday instead of go to work is directly due to the action of unions.Today, most unions have nothing like the kind of power they once had, but it is ignorant of history to suggest that unions are not "supposed" to have the power to shut down an industry.

This post is more than a little bit over the top. For one, early unions still represented individuals incapable of representing themselves individually. For another, they formed over rights and issues with a strong moral basis. The NFLPA is fighting to maintain a payraise structure which exceeds inflation even though the overwhelming majority of it's members not only maintain individual bargaining power, but are already in the top 1% income bracket. Using the same rules. laws, and logic simply falls short of "reasonable". The demands of this union are an affront to the moral demands of the early unions.

 

[Don Quixote]

RT @mortreport: Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson has ruled for players, lifting lockout, per sources. Owners will seek immediate stay.

 

[cobalt_27]

Nelson granted players injunction per Sirius.

 

[renesauz]

Greed doesn't have a sense of fairness. The owners are accused of greed all of the time, but the players are every bit as guilty.

Your auction basis would only work within the limits of a hard cap...which would fail scrutiny under trust laws. Also, unless players are obligated to go with the highest bidder (the requiring of which which would be illegal under labor laws), than teams with good histories OR an open starting gig would have the advantage with some of them. An auction system without significant labor restrictions and structure (all illegal) would be no better than the free-for-all we all fear.

I understand that some place labor unions and "rights" above NFL quality. I disagree, but understand that philosophy. I don't for a minute understand how anyone could side with the union thinking it will make the NFL better....because it won't.

 

[renesauz]

Nelson granted players injunction per Sirius.

Not a big surprise to anyone on either side of the aisle.