This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Nope. Early on, I thought the owners would win this round, but it became pretty clear that a lot of people a lot smarter than me thought she would rule on the side of the players.Now, I ask those same smart people...what's going to happen on appeal?
Same thing. The big question is whether the owners are granted a stay while the appeal is going on.
I'm hearing she already denied the stay. On to the 8th circuit...
This presumes, as Maurile has theorized in previous threads, that an auction or free agency for rookies automatically means that they will be paid even more than they are now. I think that's possible and maybe even likely, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. We can't know right now whether rookies are overpaid or not because of the artificial structure of the negotiating process when a drafting process is used. Owners are pressured by three factors: (1) their fanbases, (2) the fact that they only secure the rights to bargain with a small group of rookies and (3) the ridiculous slotting system that seems to require that this year's batch of rookies be paid more than last year's, regardless of talent level and team needs.But let's assume you're right and rookie salaries would go up. Obviously, that wouldn't be viewed favorably by current players but they're not the only parties to this dispute (well, technically they are). In fact, I think players not yet in the league are the ticking time bomb still waiting to blow this whole thing up.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?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?'"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'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.
See the exchange starting with Post 931.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.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.
Again, I don't think a current player cares whether rookies are paid fairly or not. The current players don't have any reason to not agree to a draft in the next CBA. They're ready to agree to a rookie wage scale. If they are also for a cap, anything other than a wage scale for the rookies takes money out of the pockets of the vets. Since the vets are the ones agreeing to a CBA, it doesn't make sense for them to argue against the draft (and a wage scale).This presumes, as Maurile has theorized in previous threads, that an auction or free agency for rookies automatically means that they will be paid even more than they are now. I think that's possible and maybe even likely, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. We can't know right now whether rookies are overpaid or not because of the artificial structure of the negotiating process when a drafting process is used. Owners are pressured by three factors: (1) their fanbases, (2) the fact that they only secure the rights to bargain with a small group of rookies and (3) the ridiculous slotting system that seems to require that this year's batch of rookies be paid more than last year's, regardless of talent level and team needs.But let's assume you're right and rookie salaries would go up. Obviously, that wouldn't be viewed favorably by current players but they're not the only parties to this dispute (well, technically they are). In fact, I think players not yet in the league are the ticking time bomb still waiting to blow this whole thing up.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?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?'"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'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.
This is what interests me most from the article:
If the appeals court doesn't issue a stay, there really isn't any reason to go through with the appeal. Without the lockout, players return to work and FA must begin. With that comes new FA rules or a certain antitrust loss under the old rules. The lockout was never going to kill the season so there wouldn't really be a reason to pursue it once they give in on FA.
I'd be amazed if the owners are dumb enough to try to test FA restrictions again.
You are an exceptional example that greed can extend to the fans. "Rights" in quotation marks? Fantastic.
I think the paragraph immediately following those 2 is significant, too.
No doubt. Very interesting times. Bottom line...owners need to tread carefully here.
Can they even hold a draft next year?
Rights is in quotes because I believe the claimed rights are overstated and abused. There's a big differance between a miner or factory worker's demands in 1910 and the demands of these workers players here in 2011. For one, most of the former had few job options in life. They couldn't take their college degrees to another business and still make a living. IN many cases, they had ZERO OTHER REAL OPTIONS.The players have other options. Most got college degrees. None are without another reasonable means to make a reasonable living. And therein lies the rub. Unions were built off of real people who were TRULY exploited. While some claim the players are exploited also, I find those arguments untenable. They did agree to LOWER salaries (even adjusted for inflation) in the past. I find claims of being exploited offensive when the person making the claim is being paid in excess of 300k/year, particularly when said individiuals have the capacity and education to make a fair living in another business.You are an exceptional example that greed can extend to the fans. "Rights" in quotation marks? Fantastic.
Beats me. It seems like if it's challenged by even one rookie --- the fact that he's blackballed by 31 employers because a 32nd one wants to employ him -- it would have to be thrown out.The league and the players very badly need a CBA.
You once again ignore the fact that the only reason the players are sharing in the vast quantity of wealth they help create in the first place is their union and their recourse to the courts.And as far as I'm concerned having the right to workplace where your employer isn't colluding with other businesses in your industry to suppress salaries is a moral issue.
I agree with that moral sentiment in a general sense, but the application of it here is illogical. For one, the success of the NFL could not occur WITHOUT the collusion. For another, there is no other business, except perhaps other pro sports leagues (which is a stretch since most players couldn't successfully compete in the NBA or MLB). Right now we have a mess. American Needle created it, but nobody has yet clearly defined what the NFL is....32 individual businesses or one big one? They CAN'T EXIST INDEPENDANTLY...each individual team would lose 90+% of it's value were it to suddenly leave the NFL to start its own league or join the CFL...so calling them 32 seperate entities is not even remotely accurate, despite the legal definition. Your argument is a chicken or egg argument. I argue chicken, you argue egg. The truth is nobody cares. Neither the NFL owners nor the players could have enjoyed the success they have without the cooperation of the other group.My argument is that the players negotiating power is artificially inflated by the fact that the best business practices for the NFL are illegal without a CBA. This is NOT generally the case in the overwhelming majority of cases where unions are involved. It's a giant iron hammer in the fist of labor, when the original unions (100 years ago) fought against giant corporations that held that hammer.Personally, I think the "moral answer" is that NEITHER side holds a giant iron hammer. The current laws were written to take ther hammer out of corporate hands, not to hand the same hammer to labor, but the unique nature of pro sports does exactly that.
I know you and I are so far apart on this philosophically we are still barely in the same universe, but you keep using normal industry/labor situations. What business/industry does keeping competitors on a somewhat equal footing (ie competitive balance) through agreements makes everyone more money? None I can think of except professional sports. I do not want to go back to the pre 1980's in sports, but this free market - free for all is not going to bring more revenue into the players or owners in the long run. The only difference is the players could care less, they want theirs now - who cares what happens to the league in 10 years.We can have an elite 8 league at some point down the road, that will be lots of fun. Yep the top 15% will make more, but what about the rest of the labor pool? As Carl Eller put it a week ago, "When the Union decertified before, it was for philosophical reasons (getting FA was the main point), but this Union leadership is doing it simply because of a disagreement on how to split $1 billion. It is not philosophical at all, just greed and money driven". Pretty well put.
I agree with that moral sentiment in a general sense, but the application of it here is illogical. For one, the success of the NFL could not occur WITHOUT the collusion. For another, there is no other business, except perhaps other pro sports leagues (which is a stretch since most players couldn't successfully compete in the NBA or MLB). Right now we have a mess. American Needle created it, but nobody has yet clearly defined what the NFL is....32 individual businesses or one big one? They CAN'T EXIST INDEPENDANTLY...each individual team would lose 90+% of it's value were it to suddenly leave the NFL to start its own league or join the CFL...so calling them 32 seperate entities is not even remotely accurate, despite the legal definition. Your argument is a chicken or egg argument. I argue chicken, you argue egg. The truth is nobody cares. Neither the NFL owners nor the players could have enjoyed the success they have without the cooperation of the other group.My argument is that the players negotiating power is artificially inflated by the fact that the best business practices for the NFL are illegal without a CBA. This is NOT generally the case in the overwhelming majority of cases where unions are involved. It's a giant iron hammer in the fist of labor, when the original unions (100 years ago) fought against giant corporations that held that hammer. IE: It could be argued that the NFLPA is INFLATING salaries. Personally, I think the "moral answer" is that NEITHER side holds a giant iron hammer. The current laws were written to take ther hammer out of corporate hands, not to hand the same hammer to labor, but the unique nature of pro sports does exactly that.
For all the same reasons that I expected the players to ultimately win in district court, I also expect the players to ultimately win on appeal. Namely, that they are right.But the players haven't actually won yet. They've gotten a preliminary injunction, meaning that the district court judge thinks they are likely to win. But they haven't gotten a judgment yet; just an injunction.
They can do lots of stuff. They can create a schedule, refine the rules, and play a season.They just can't have a salary cap or a draft. Other restrictions on free agency will be upheld or rejected based on their reasonableness.
Are you arguing specifically to the situation in the NFL or of unions in general? I'm assuming your argument is meant more towards the NFL situation. I don't know if the 'balance of power' has shifted too much in favour of the players as the owners have done pretty well over the course of the previous CBA. The balance of power shifts from side to side to varying degrees all the time and both sides will use that shift to enhance their position. I think what players and owners are doing is trying to find that middle ground and both are using the tools available to help them gain leverage and get the best possible deal for themselves. I understand as a fan this is frustrating but it's part of the process.Rights is in quotes because I believe the claimed rights are overstated and abused. There's a big differance between a miner or factory worker's demands in 1910 and the demands of these workers players here in 2011. For one, most of the former had few job options in life. They couldn't take their college degrees to another business and still make a living. IN many cases, they had ZERO OTHER REAL OPTIONS.The players have other options. Most got college degrees. None are without another reasonable means to make a reasonable living. And therein lies the rub. Unions were built off of real people who were TRULY exploited. While some claim the players are exploited also, I find those arguments untenable. They did agree to LOWER salaries (even adjusted for inflation) in the past. I find claims of being exploited offensive when the person making the claim is being paid in excess of 300k/year, particularly when said individiuals have the capacity and education to make a fair living in another business.You are an exceptional example that greed can extend to the fans. "Rights" in quotation marks? Fantastic.
The players are abusing the labor and trust laws. I can't blame them for trying because the laws are not intended for this scenario and they can get away with it. BUt that doesn't make what they're doing right. The first union workers fought against an oppressive system where they had little power. We've progressed to a point where that balance of power has reversed. It's past time to find a happy middle ground.
To be clear Maurile, agreeing with the legality of a situation is not the same as agreeing with the philosophy/morality. I think the players are likely to win every lawsuit they threaten. And doing so will ruin the league.They hold the giant iron hammer, and they shouldn't. Nobody should.
It seems to me that your rant about unions is misplaced. The players don't have a union right now. The rights they are enforcing in court are not based on a union or on labor laws.Rights is in quotes because I believe the claimed rights are overstated and abused. There's a big differance between a miner or factory worker's demands in 1910 and the demands of these workers players here in 2011. For one, most of the former had few job options in life. They couldn't take their college degrees to another business and still make a living. IN many cases, they had ZERO OTHER REAL OPTIONS.The players have other options. Most got college degrees. None are without another reasonable means to make a reasonable living. And therein lies the rub. Unions were built off of real people who were TRULY exploited. While some claim the players are exploited also, I find those arguments untenable. They did agree to LOWER salaries (even adjusted for inflation) in the past. I find claims of being exploited offensive when the person making the claim is being paid in excess of 300k/year, particularly when said individiuals have the capacity and education to make a fair living in another business.You are an exceptional example that greed can extend to the fans. "Rights" in quotation marks? Fantastic.
The players are abusing the labor and trust laws. I can't blame them for trying because the laws are not intended for this scenario and they can get away with it. BUt that doesn't make what they're doing right. The first union workers fought against an oppressive system where they had little power. We've progressed to a point where that balance of power has reversed. It's past time to find a happy middle ground.
While I'm specifically writing about the NFLPA, I do think that some unions have become too powerful. It's a mixed bag, and not a simple one. Unions nearly ruined the American Auto industry, for example. (Sorry, but when the guy balancing tires in the Ford plant was making over 18 bucks an hour, while the same job elsewhere was worth 10 bucks, it should have been obvious to anyone that something was wrong!) Other unions operate from a more level playing field, and ensure their members a fair work environment.I'm not anti-Union per se, nor pro-big business. I would categorize my position as one of general neutrality in labor issues.
Sure it's greed but it's the same greed that the owners had when they negotiated, in bad faith, a lesser TV deal(and in the process took money from the players doing it) to protect themselves for the premeditated lockout. The players were fine with the previous CBA. It was the owners who wanted more, were greedy and now the players are vilified because they want to protect what they had? They're not asking for more the owners are.
What is "the" collusion? There's all kinds of collusion (i.e., cooperation) among NFL teams. Some of it is procompetitive, and some of it is anticompetitive. We want teams to cooperate with regard to determining the rules and setting a schedule. There's no problem there. Teams are expected to cooperate in some respects and to compete in other respects. They're supposed to cooperate when it comes to setting roster sizes. They're supposed to compete when it comes to scoring touchdowns. They're also supposed to compete when it comes to signing players. Cooperation in signing players serves some good (e.g., promoting parity), but the good is outweighed by the anticompetitive aspects (e.g., suppressing wages).
The veterans will want to retain something like the draft because it suppresses rookie wages. Less money for rookies means more money for veterans.
High wages may or may not have played a part of the near demise of the auto industry as one can argue that the industry got complacent and lazy as a whole but I see your point to an extent. With less than 9% of the private sector unionized, I don't think unions as a whole have anywhere near the power or influence they might have had at one time.I just want to add that this has been one of the best threads I've seen for civility with cohesive arguments from all sides. Maybe some hyperbole but over all a very good thread without any degeneration into name calling or shtick. Thanks to all!
Yet the overwhelming majority of posters insist that the players don't want to ruin the NFL, that they want to keep some sort of salary cap and a draft. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't decide to not be a union, but still want to keep things in place that are only legal with a union (and CBA).Again, if you philosophically believe in these individual rights strongly enough that you'd rather the NFL was destroyed then to limit those rights, I have no beef with your position. Mine is that those rights are being overstated and the laws abused. These players have the means and education to make a good living elsewhere.The "rule of reason" you talk about is too nebulous. Too arbitrary. Many of the things the NFL would want to do would fail the test simply because they can still know some success without them. But "some success" <> the great NFL we've had for the last 20 years. UNlimited FA and no draft would destroy that NFL. Every team imposing it's own sets of disciplinary codes and drug policies would destroy league credibility. The lack of a salary cap or floor would dramatically imblance the competitiveness of the league. The very things the lack of a union/CBA create will ultimately hurt the income of the players.Logically then, the decertification would thus have to be a sham, because it will almost certainly hurt the players long-term...except that these specific players may make more...these players may come out ahead, at the expense of future players. How ironic. It's a sham, but not really. While the labor disputes of most unions benefit those who follow, those of pro sports unions don't necessarily do so. Our labor and trust laws fail in the arena of pro sports. How anyone could argue that the same rules should be used and still profess a love for the NFL is beyond me.
You say they're suppressing wages, but couldn't one equally argue that the NFLPA uses its power to artificially inflate wages? Most of us agree that in the absence of a cap, stars will generally makes more, and payroll totals may go up a little, but NOT in a balanced way. Also, the MEDIAN salary is far more likely to decline than rise.The very elements that you declare illegal are the same ones that built the NFL to the tremendous level of success it enjoys...and THE PLAYERS ARE PROSPERING OFF OF!!! Let's not equate these rich guys to Joe the minor or Frank the factory worker.
Sure you can. And we're seeing that. The players are doing the only thing they can other than accept whatever the owners are willing to offer. If you believe the owners that they need to cut the players' share and the players are being greedy by wanting to keep most of what they have, OK. But since the players didn't agree to that, they could have sat out, risked the NFL season, and watched their union crumble as players defected. Or they could do this. I'd put at least equal responsibility on the owners to now understand that the NFL's structure as we've known it is under threat. Give up this battle now to maintain the NFL, and work to change the laws that are obviously against them.
I really don't understand how you can justify them setting roster size rules and not call that anti-competitive (suppressing wages/limiting size of workforce). If Jerruh Jones wanted to fill his 100K stadium and win multiple Lombardis and he sees the best way of doing that is going three deep at all positions with starter level talent and he is willing to pay them, how is roster limits NOT suppressing wages. If Jerry wants to hire Manning, Brees and Brady to play QB, pay them more than anyone else is willing, and rotate his QBs, thus exending their careers...who are you to say they can't? And if he wants to do it at every position, carrying a roster of over 120+ players, how is it NOT suppressing wages (and depriving other fringe players the opportunity to play QB for the Saints and Patriots and other teams stripped of players) to say he can't? Roster limits is just as anti-competitive as salary caps. Additionally, I don't see why scheduling wouldn't become more of a college football team-by-team setting and agreeing to schedules than the NFL setting schedules. The Cowboys, should, after all, maximize profits and they would do that by scheduling either a) patsies that they can beat or b) teams that draw a big crowd. They'd also likely arrange for extra home games doing a two-for-one, maximizing their draw.
in a world with a salary cap this may be true.. Without one, agents and vets would argue that outrageous rookie salaries drive up second and third contracts for superstar players. Peyton Manning can't make less than Cam Newton, right. So in the free market, when Cam Newton agrees to a ridiculous new contract, Manning re-negotiates his contract to exceed it.
Without a CBA allowing a draft, the NFL CAN'T continue a draft. It won't matter if the players like it or want it. All it will take is ONE single player to sue...then the NFL will be open to a class action suit with treble damages, as well as a court order to suspend the draft. Whether the majority of players wanted it or not will be immaterial.
Active roster size is an on-field rule. Limiting active roster sizes is like limiting the number of eligible receivers who can be on the field at once. It's part of the rules enforced by officials during the games. Teams have to agree to that kind of stuff.Limiting non-active roster sizes might be anticompetitive.
That's not unique to the NFL. The best business practices for pretty much any business are illegal.The best business practices of Exxon, Chevron, and BP are to agree among themselves about what prices to charge.
Ummmmm.....isn't it the non-active roster size that matters here? Having an extra 50 players in reserve could be a huge competitive benefit to those teams that could afford them.
I would say other than the 11 on 11, positional rule requirements, all others rule limits would be anti-competitive.
Come one man, you aren't really equating this to price-fixing, are you? I mean, in your example, the companies aren't raping the employees...in fact, with said practices, they could probably pay them more....they're raping the public.We can argue that the NFL is raping the public....but I can't get on board with any argument that they're raping the players. IN this case, a strong argument can be made that their policies and procedures to date have BENEFITED the players (at least financially), and will continue to do so. The players objectives may very well be to the future demise of a different set of players.
Of course. My position has always been that the players have the better legal arguments under the law as it currently stands.If you want my views about how the law should be reformed, that takes us pretty far afield from anything I'd expect people to care about; but I'm sympathetic to the view that all antitrust laws should be repealed. That's kind of irrelevant, though.
I would agree with what you say in regards to "benefiting"... if only the owners hadn't screwed the pooch and left some massive doubt by making that contract breaking television agreement that was to their benefit and not also the players (as was the agreement in the contract). Now they have shown they can't be fully trusted.
I respect this statement more than you know! I disagree a little bit on the relevancy though. I don't necessarily think all anti-trust laws should be repealed, but I do think some need to be reworked (as well as some labor laws). This particular labor dispute helps to illustrate why...I can agree with the legality of the players position without agreeing with the morality of their position. When legality <> morality, than it begs a closer look at the laws. This does not even imply that the laws are immoral, just imperfect. And that's why I have said the players are abusing the law. If it's not moral, it's not right, regardless of the law. Laws meant to promote moral dealings (by management to labor) have been used to promote immoral dealings (by labor to management). (NOTE: The NFL owners are surely not innocent...the TV deal serves as a cogent and recent reminder!)Sidenote: I actually think that the owners should extend the last CBA by 3 years on the condition that players drop any lawsuit over the TV deal. Said lawsuit might actually cost the owners as much or more than they stand to gain in current CBA negotiations. Meanwhile, the owners would gather more effective data to renogotiate in the meantime as well as work on congress for more specific legislation to update labor rules for pro sports leagues. I do NOT say this because I agree with the players arguments. It just seems like a legal out for past bad actions.
When teams agree with each other on the amount they'll pay for players, yes, of course that's price-fixing. Wages are prices, and wage-fixing is price-fixing. There are cases on that, if you want me to cite one.
