Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
No CBA = no draft. Every player would have the right to negotiate with all 32 teams and play for the highest bidder.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Orange Crush
- Start date
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Well, if this were true, we wouldn't be having a draft this April. But, we are.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
this makes no sense.there will be an NFL draft.The owners want it and thats whats going to happen'wdcrob said:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
IIRC that's only because it was written into the last CBA that it would still be held.'cobalt_27 said:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Maybe Crush can help us out here, but it's my understanding that a draft is illegal in the absence of a CBA. Not even close to allowable.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
well there will be a draft in april without one. ANd back in like 1987 or so the had a draft for 3 years without a union or CBA in place.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
What did you think was going to happen this April? Not hold a draft?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Again, I'll defer to someone with better law chops, but it was the fact that the draft and other league activities were going to be ruled in violation of anti-trust law that led the owners to agree to allow free agency in 1993. The subsequent CBA gave the players a lot more money and a lot more power (via free agency).So you could be right that the league will continue to operate as is after decertification, but it might end up being very costly.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Read more. Post less. This years draft is covered by the expiring CBA.
scoobygang
Footballguy
No effect. The NFL has a statutory exemption for negotiating television contracts. That's not related in anyway to the non-statutory labor exemption that immunizes collusive actions achieved through collective bargaining.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
As has been said here many times, this year's draft is already covered under the current CBA. No others though. The draft is such a part of football that I cannot imagine the owners voluntarily getting rid of it. The good news is that they've got over a year to get a new CBA to give them legal cover. If there's neither a new CBA or a union in 2012, then the owners have to know that the draft will be challenged the second some player goes lower and/or is offered a lower deal than they think they are worth. They can still do so, in the hopes that they'll negotiate a new CBA which allows for a draft before any litigation is completed regarding the draft, but it's a risk. And under the scenario I outlined earlier, the NFL can make arguments that the rookie draft can be upheld under the "Rule of Reason" doctrine under antitrust law. Whether those arguments will be accepted by a court is unlikely, but probably not the miniscule chance the NFLPA would assume. The rookie draft is an issue that is highly susceptible to an antitrust claim, but one in which the owners have bought themselves a time cushion.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Here's two recent law school grads saying the exact same thing but with completely different language. As you can tell, Scooby is much smarter and more sophisticated than I.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
What I don't understand from a legal perspective is when players associations in major sports collectively bargain and AGREE to terms that are already known to be too restrictive and noncompliant with existing labor laws (franchise tags, salary caps, rookie wage scales, restricted free agency, etc.) that they can still argue those same points in court over and over again. Specifically, if certain league practices have been found to be too restrictive, how do they end up in CBAs again? Shouldn't they be prohibted? If they agree to them AGAIN, how can they argue that they are unfair?
you raise a good point.Past history will almost certainly play a role in how this plays out.the last time the NFL lost under anti-trust, they did not have a CBA approved free agency program to point to. As you state, they now have one approved by the players under which those players have seen their salaries explode. May bne tough to prove damages on that one. and since Reggie White and other veterans brought the anti-trust action, it is doubtful that the rookie draft was an issue considered at that time. The dynamics have changed alot since the last case and it is not a slam dunk that the verdict will follow the last one. The business environment is different as well.The first issue will be the de-certification itself, which the NFL can point to the prior facts regarding the true intentions of the Union to support its claim of it being a sham strategy tactic.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
David,If ESPN came to you and told you they'd like to make you a feature writer on their site, and in return you had to sign a contract guaranteeing them exclusivity of all work and a no-compete for a year after your relationship with them terminated, would you sign it? If they offered you enough money would you sign it? After you leave ESPN you can't work for any other company that has anything to do with sports entertainment for one year. That seems unfair, but you agreed to it, did you not?If Sports Illustrated came along afterwards and hired you, would you have to agree to a non-compete and exclusivity clause, simply because you had agreed to the same in the past? Or could you argue otherwise?The players agreed to play under those rules for a set amount of time. After that time is expired, they don't have to agree to the same rules any more, and can exercise all of their available options, both contractual and legal.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
It depends. If ESPN hired me and paid me an inordinate amount of money to compensate me for NOT working for a full year after I left, then they have provided a valuable incentive to agree to their terms. That's how it works with non compete clauses and that has already been ruled on in courts. If they simply hire you and don't give you anything different than a "regular" contract, non-complete clauses don't cut it in the eyes of the court system.So if I signed with ESPN and they gave me $2 million to cover me for the year I couldn't write for SI, then IMO I would have no right to complain about what ESPN was doing. Similarly, if I went through all that with ESPN, and I voluntarily entered into the same type of contractural arrangement with SI, it's not like I was an ignoramus and did not know and understand the situation. Sure, I suppose I could legally try to fight the same thing all over again, but it's not like anyone held a gun to my head. As you implied, if it was part of the contract and that was the only way to get hired by ESPN, then I could choose NOT to sign the contract and choose not to work there.There have been a lot of CBA negotiations in football and other sports and the same issues get raised, approved by the players, and fought over in court. If these things are found to be noncompliant with labor laws across rulings for other sports, then throw those things out in ALL sports in every CBA. Courts should not have to keep revisiting these things overa and over again.Turning to football as an example, the franchise tag was a concept that the PLAYERS insisted be forced upon the owners. The owners didn't want it and the players wanted a minumum of two franchise tags (if not more) to try to keep superstars on the same team. They did not like that with the onset of free agency that teams could just let veterans and big name players walk, so they created the franchise tag and encouraged teams to use them.That was 17 years ago. There have been several incarnations of the CBA since then, yet suddenly the players are screaming that they hate the franchise tag and it does not comply to basic tenants of labor law . . . when they were the ones that created it and forced it on the owners. Whether they were the ones driving the franchise tag model probably won't matter in the eyes of the law, as the laws are the laws. But that's the sort of thing that makes me scratch my head. They insisted on the provision, yet now they are arguing that they are forced to live with it and are effectively being forced to sign with a gun to their heads.
This is exactly why major professional sports leagues SHOULD have anti-trust exemption, with a federal mediator that actually has the power to force a deal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Orange Crush
Footballguy
No, you're confused about that. It was the OWNERS who insisted on the franchise tag. They didn't want the centerpieces of their local marketing campaigns to walk out the door and were very concerned about reducing fan loyalty to their club. Of course, the players didn't want it. It's a restriction on their ability to test the market and get the best deal they can.The reason why this seems so confounding now is because of the history of sports leagues in America. Baseball was the first big, popular sports league. They treated the players pretty much like indentured servants. Players had no choice regarding which team they played for or for how much money (or pretty much anything). Their choice was to take what the league offered, or do something other than play ball. They challenged in court, and in one of the most laughable decisions I've ever read (looking through the lens of our current time), antitrust law was deemed inapplicable to baseball because baseball was inherently a local activity, did not cross state lines (even though players crossed state lines to play the games) and thus was not part of interstate commerce. A later court upheld this decision, only referring it to an antitrust exemption, and sports leagues were off and running doing whatever they pleased. It was commonly assumed that all sports leagues fit under this court ruling, not just baseball. The "Reserve System", whereby a team reserved the rights to a player even after the player contract expired, was the basis for how all sports leagues operated. By the time a football player actually challenged the NFL in court over this, our understanding of interstate commerce and the applicability of antitrust laws and economics had evolved quite a bit, and the NFL (and all other sports leagues) were shocked when they lost. Since then, the NFL has waged a rearguard action, slowly buying the players off through increased revenue sharing with the them through collective bargaining in order to keep the attributes that they think are paramount in how the league operates -- the rookie draft, revenue sharing amongst clubs, and at least some limited form of the reserve system for the players' first 4-5 years in the league. This is really the first time that the NFL owners have declared that things have gone too far and they are pushing back hard. I don't know if De Smith has the same viewpoint as the late Gene Upshaw, that the players have top be partners with the owners for the betterment of the sport. It's impossible to tell, because Smith is taking the actions he has to in order to best represent his clients, the players. But it is certainly possible to challenge every single thing you mentioned above under antitrust law. I don't think any of us would like the end result of that free for all. The bottom line is that sports leagues (as they are currently structured at least) NEED unions and collective bargaining agreements.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
This is a HUGE win for the players.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Thinking about this a bit...
If Doty's ruling applies in the event of a decertification it seems to me that it puts the owners between a rock and a hard place. They might win on appeal, but they won't know in time to inform the decision about whether to make a deal or not. And not having any income is a hell of a risk to take if you've leveraged yourself to the eyeballs and can't make your payments without it.
And, FWIW, I strongly suspect that the credit bubble that's in the process of deflating is a big back story to all this. Just a guess that there are several owners who have been incredibly stupid in terms of the amount of debt they've take on and need to claw back additional revenue from the players to bail themselves out.
If Doty's ruling applies in the event of a decertification it seems to me that it puts the owners between a rock and a hard place. They might win on appeal, but they won't know in time to inform the decision about whether to make a deal or not. And not having any income is a hell of a risk to take if you've leveraged yourself to the eyeballs and can't make your payments without it.
And, FWIW, I strongly suspect that the credit bubble that's in the process of deflating is a big back story to all this. Just a guess that there are several owners who have been incredibly stupid in terms of the amount of debt they've take on and need to claw back additional revenue from the players to bail themselves out.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
No question that the owners are super desperate to get out from under Judge Doty's rule. The guy has consistently ruled against them on almost every single issue.
Toads
Footballguy
This article from Bleacher Reports Mike DiTullio entitled: NFL Labor Talks: Will Union Decertification Backfire For The Players?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623658-nfl-labor-talks-will-union-decertification-backfire-for-players
Doesn't sound like decertification gains the players a lot of leverage.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623658-nfl-labor-talks-will-union-decertification-backfire-for-players
Doesn't sound like decertification gains the players a lot of leverage.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
IIRC, there was an article in Forbes today that said the owners had enough of a nest egg to be able to withstand a lockout of two full seasons. I don't know if that accounted for the owners potentially not having tv revenue for this year or not.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Mostly because the law is fairly clear I suspect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Orange Crush
Footballguy
One of the basic assumptions in S&P's analysis was that the owners would have access to the network money in '11.That article was almost obsolete before it was published.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
That's article is accurate, but overstates things. The owners are going to be challenged with litigation every step of the way, and some of their moves are going to be much more costly than others.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
There are only (widespread) millionaires because labor laws were applied in the first place. Until the courts got involved players were effectively property of the team that held their rights.
Why people begrudge talent getting paid is beyond me. None of the players inherited their position in the NFL, they earned them - unlike many owners. The players have to perform well (in college at the very least) to get paid millions - unlike many of the owners. The players haven't driven themselves so far into debt that they need a bailout - unlike many of the owners. The players have never held a city hostage to receive taxpayer money under threat of losing a team - unlike the owners. The players didn't vote to end early a mutually beneficial agreement that had been in place since 1993 - unlike the owners. The players didn't spend two years laying the groundwork for a a lockout - unlike the owners.
Why people begrudge talent getting paid is beyond me. None of the players inherited their position in the NFL, they earned them - unlike many owners. The players have to perform well (in college at the very least) to get paid millions - unlike many of the owners. The players haven't driven themselves so far into debt that they need a bailout - unlike many of the owners. The players have never held a city hostage to receive taxpayer money under threat of losing a team - unlike the owners. The players didn't vote to end early a mutually beneficial agreement that had been in place since 1993 - unlike the owners. The players didn't spend two years laying the groundwork for a a lockout - unlike the owners.
The players make millions of $ for 5 - 10 years if they are lucky - unlike the owners, who can own their teams for decades.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
True, but the primary cost to players in entering the game is a physical cost. Owners have to pay hundreds of millions to buy the team, then help finance billion dollar stadiums in order to make $10-20M a year in profits. Their financial risk and exposure to make their profits is much higher than what the players' is.The players make millions of $ for 5 - 10 years if they are lucky - unlike the owners, who can own their teams for decades.
With revenue sharing there is absolutely no risk or exposure to owners. No one is forcing these owners to purchase stadiums. They already make profits with their current ones. They choose to build them to get more money. The yearly profits aren't really the best way to measure the owners either. That's chump change compared to the ever increasing value of their franchises. I don't believe an NFL owner has ever had to sell their team for less than they bought it.True, but the primary cost to players in entering the game is a physical cost. Owners have to pay hundreds of millions to buy the team, then help finance billion dollar stadiums in order to make $10-20M a year in profits. Their financial risk and exposure to make their profits is much higher than what the players' is.The players make millions of $ for 5 - 10 years if they are lucky - unlike the owners, who can own their teams for decades.
Ksquared
Footballguy
Terrible "dated" analogies. There is so many areas that these comments are misguided, I am not sure if I know where to start. In one of these threads a month ago, we got the "owners did not earn their money, they inherited it" line which was clearly refuted by several responses using actual published data. Yes some of the owners got much of their money from an inheritance, but the clear majority were poor at some point in their past and "earned" the wealth they have gained and in fact many were poor at one point. Here are the problems that the "pro-player" crowd does not seem to be considering and why I am more in the owners camp in this process this time:1. The credit bubble is over for the near future and many of these franchises are up to their ears in debt (like much of American business in the last decade). And the govt/taxpayers are not going to provide any $$ in the near future for stadium construction or improvements.2. Health care costs are going out of sight and the desire to cover the retired players into the future is a massive new cost to the old business model and needs to be paid for someway.3. Lawsuits - the owners are not stupid (well at least most) and the potential lawsuits about head trauma, diminished life, early deaths, etc could literally cost the NFL billions. See Dave Dureson's death in the last week, if his brain gets studied and finds severe damage - his family will be the first of many bringing a major lawsuit against the league. This has to scare the crap out of the NFL - we all know this game is physically brutal to the body, but this issue more than any other could end the NFL as we know it.Philosophical discussing about the current labor/business environment - If you have not noticed in the last 10+ years with the growth of the world economy and its collapse, the classic labor/ownership view will continue to fail if we hang on to it. Having been a union negotiator twice, I am amazed at how the leadership and many of the rank and file members still look at the the labor/ownership relationship as an adversarial one. This mindset has its roots from the 1930's but is still prevalent. The companies that are succeeding the most in this economy are the ones where labor and management are a true partnership.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
What's the risk? Point me to one NFL owner that has lost money on their investment over the long term?Sure. No risk.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
1. I think you are overstating this a bit. Some teams are up to their eyeballs in debt. The owners of those teams made their own decisions. They were bad decisions. Why they think there shouldn't be a financial cost for making bad business decisions is beyond me. Also, while the general trend has been away from public financing of stadiums, it will still vary wildly from city to city. San Francisco has already committed to spending public money for a new 49ers stadium, and are trying to get the Raiders to play in it, too, for cost savings. Minnesota is debating committing public monies for a new stadium. Next year's Super Bowl is going to be played in Indianapolis in an almost completely publicly financed stadium. 2. Health Care Costs -- the owners and players are figuring out the split in revenues for each side. Health care costs and other benefits, including those dedicated to retired players, will come out of the players portion. The owners only care about the issue for public relations (and so may end up paying a portion out of their revenues).3. The threat of concussion litigation is overstated, in my opinion. Yes, there's the potential of a class-action lawsuit that destroys the league. I think the odds the league being found culpable alongside a damages award that high is 1 in 10,000. Maybe even smaller. Players took the assumption of risk in playing a violent game, and the NFL instituted new rules to minimize injuries and head trauma whenever new info came to light. Sometimes they allowed the players options instead of forcing a new rule, such as the availability of new concussion-reducing helmets. They gave the research info to the players and the players union and allowed the players the choice -- further proving the assumption of risk defense. I whole-heartedly agree with your final paragraph, which is why I'm most frustrated with the owners in the current situation. They are trying to turn back the clock to the early '90s (at least) for the financial structure of the league, with Jerry Richardson proclaiming in an owners meeting that it is time to "take our league back" from the players. It is the owners who are initiating the adversarial nature of these negotiations, and therefore they deserve the blame for any work stoppage that deprives us fans of the high quality product we demand.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
You really think if they stopped expending capital and re-investing in the team they would still continue to increase in value?Just because the NFL is popular and currently owning an NFL team is a "good investment" doesn't mean it comes without risk, doesn't mean it doesn't require continual influx of capital and re-investment, doesn't mean that there is no risk (including the risk of labor strife, unfair labor deals, union decertification, anti-trust legislation and treble damages). Sure. No risk. Set it and forget it.What's the risk? Point me to one NFL owner that has lost money on their investment over the long term?With revenue sharing there is absolutely no risk or exposure to owners. No one is forcing these owners to purchase stadiums. They already make profits with their current ones. They choose to build them to get more money. The yearly profits aren't really the best way to measure the owners either. That's chump change compared to the ever increasing value of their franchises. I don't believe an NFL owner has ever had to sell their team for less than they bought it.True, but the primary cost to players in entering the game is a physical cost. Owners have to pay hundreds of millions to buy the team, then help finance billion dollar stadiums in order to make $10-20M a year in profits. Their financial risk and exposure to make their profits is much higher than what the players' is.Sure. No risk.
Ksquared
Footballguy
This I think is at the core of the issue. I believe most business leaders realize the past business models have changed dramatically in the last few years and with the concerns I listed above, we may see teams being sold for less than they were purchased. Especially if the season is affected, it will take years for the viewing numbers to come back. Which means less $$ for everyone. Again, do not lose sight of the massive potential increase in costs to ownership in the future with lawsuits and health care.With revenue sharing there is absolutely no risk or exposure to owners. No one is forcing these owners to purchase stadiums. They already make profits with their current ones. They choose to build them to get more money. The yearly profits aren't really the best way to measure the owners either. That's chump change compared to the ever increasing value of their franchises. I don't believe an NFL owner has ever had to sell their team for less than they bought it.True, but the primary cost to players in entering the game is a physical cost. Owners have to pay hundreds of millions to buy the team, then help finance billion dollar stadiums in order to make $10-20M a year in profits. Their financial risk and exposure to make their profits is much higher than what the players' is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Risk assumes that there's a chance of losing money on their investment. Again, show me an example of this. Preferably without the attitude. Show me an owner that invested in a stadium or new facilities and couldn't make their money back. If I'm virtually guaranteed to make more money in the long run due to spending money now, that's not risky.You really think if they stopped expending capital and re-investing in the team they would still continue to increase in value?Just because the NFL is popular and currently owning an NFL team is a "good investment" doesn't mean it comes without risk, doesn't mean it doesn't require continual influx of capital and re-investment, doesn't mean that there is no risk (including the risk of labor strife, unfair labor deals, union decertification, anti-trust legislation and treble damages). Sure. No risk. Set it and forget it.What's the risk? Point me to one NFL owner that has lost money on their investment over the long term?With revenue sharing there is absolutely no risk or exposure to owners. No one is forcing these owners to purchase stadiums. They already make profits with their current ones. They choose to build them to get more money. The yearly profits aren't really the best way to measure the owners either. That's chump change compared to the ever increasing value of their franchises. I don't believe an NFL owner has ever had to sell their team for less than they bought it.True, but the primary cost to players in entering the game is a physical cost. Owners have to pay hundreds of millions to buy the team, then help finance billion dollar stadiums in order to make $10-20M a year in profits. Their financial risk and exposure to make their profits is much higher than what the players' is.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Yes. See Bills, Bufallo and Raiders, Oakland.
Ksquared
Footballguy
You have more confidence than I do regarding lawsuits (McDonald's hot coffee, or umpteen other frivolous lawsuits that just need a jury to feel "someone is responsible" to start the legal precedent). I know you have a much better legal background than I, but the prize money is so big there will be law firms working non-stop to be the first to get a settlement and then the precedent will be set. As to the owners forcing the issue, I go back to what Mawae stated a month ago "we killed them in the last agreement and the owners want some back", which tells me the players know the pulled one over the owners last time. So the owners should just accept it, why? Labor never thinks that way if they feel ownership had the upper hand in the last negotiations. When Goodell and Upshaw were the main two negotiators I truly believe there was a sense of partnership between the two sides. What has occurred since (especially with the hiring of Smith) is the classic "adversarial" labor/management negotiations, which removes any sense of partnership.
I agree. I don't have much sympathy in lost money due to the lockout because the owners have chosen and planned for this on their own. They are going to have to demonstrate this to the players though. That's going to be hard to do without opening their books or waiting until there's actual lawsuits or a team really has financial problems.This I think is at the core of the issue. I believe most business leaders realize the past business models have changed dramatically in the last few years and with the concerns I listed above, we may see teams being sold for less than they were purchased. Especially if the season is affected, it will take years for the viewing numbers to come back. Which means less $$ for everyone. Again, do not lose sight of the massive potential increase in costs to ownership down in the future with lawsuits and health care.With revenue sharing there is absolutely no risk or exposure to owners. No one is forcing these owners to purchase stadiums. They already make profits with their current ones. They choose to build them to get more money. The yearly profits aren't really the best way to measure the owners either. That's chump change compared to the ever increasing value of their franchises. I don't believe an NFL owner has ever had to sell their team for less than they bought it.True, but the primary cost to players in entering the game is a physical cost. Owners have to pay hundreds of millions to buy the team, then help finance billion dollar stadiums in order to make $10-20M a year in profits. Their financial risk and exposure to make their profits is much higher than what the players' is.
Shutout
Footballguy
Doesn't it seem that if the union decertifies, that the term lockout now just simply becomes "Shutdown" (using the baseball '94-'95 as reference)? It seems to be the same situation and if so then the owners are doing the safest thing by shutting down because as we saw in baseball, if they attempt to open the doors with new rules, it opens the flood gates for anti-trust suits, leads to an injunction where its ruled that they must go back to status quo. Just my thoughts as a decertification seems like the best best for more football in 2011.
Re: owners vs. players: I usually don't take this side but in this case, I am with the owners. regardless of how they got their money in inheritance, earned it, stole it, or whatever else, at some point in time, it was their risk (or their great grandfather's or whoever) that put their financial life on the line (along with their spuse's kids, anyone they borrowed money from, the famil farm, etc) and they came up BIG. Originally, it was their foresight and means that they created that allowed them to buy into the NFL and like any business person, they have earned the right to reap the rewards in the good ole USA. If I start a widget factory today with all my resources that goes from small potatoes to Wal-mart in the next 30 years ago, I and my family and my charities and anyone else I choose to share it with fittingly deserve the rewards.
There ARE many risks to owning teams although people seem to think its like buying a money tree. Its the pressure from other owners and many other factors that necessitate pumping billions into stadiums and equipment. Owners aren't going to survive if they can't attract free agents, put a product on the field, etc. Other owners won't stand for it. The Bills and Raiders are exempted because they are iconic owners (Al Davis once personally funded the money that allowed the Bills to continue to exist...on some level, there is an exception handed to them that wouldn't be allowed to a new owner who used his fortune to buy a team today).
SO much more than simple statements about how there is not risk.
Re: owners vs. players: I usually don't take this side but in this case, I am with the owners. regardless of how they got their money in inheritance, earned it, stole it, or whatever else, at some point in time, it was their risk (or their great grandfather's or whoever) that put their financial life on the line (along with their spuse's kids, anyone they borrowed money from, the famil farm, etc) and they came up BIG. Originally, it was their foresight and means that they created that allowed them to buy into the NFL and like any business person, they have earned the right to reap the rewards in the good ole USA. If I start a widget factory today with all my resources that goes from small potatoes to Wal-mart in the next 30 years ago, I and my family and my charities and anyone else I choose to share it with fittingly deserve the rewards.
There ARE many risks to owning teams although people seem to think its like buying a money tree. Its the pressure from other owners and many other factors that necessitate pumping billions into stadiums and equipment. Owners aren't going to survive if they can't attract free agents, put a product on the field, etc. Other owners won't stand for it. The Bills and Raiders are exempted because they are iconic owners (Al Davis once personally funded the money that allowed the Bills to continue to exist...on some level, there is an exception handed to them that wouldn't be allowed to a new owner who used his fortune to buy a team today).
SO much more than simple statements about how there is not risk.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
You just set off one of my pet peeves. Yes, there are frivolous claims, and some of them even result in large awards (though nowhere near the frequency that people think). I even understand why the hot coffee case has become the poster child for frivolous claims, because it just sounds ridiculous. But the McDonalds case was not frivolous, nor did it result in the burned woman receiving millions of dollars. I tried to talk myself out of posting even this much and letting it lie, but I guess its not within my character.Ok, the real reason for responding. Do you, or does anyone else, have a link to the actual Mawae quote? I very much doubt his words were "we killed them." I'd very much like to know exactly what he said but I haven't been able to find it.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
In previous CBA's, benefits for both retired and current players came out of the players portion of league revenues. The only references I've seen to retired players' health care in recent media accounts have come from the rookie cap negotiations. The teams want to cap rookie salaries. The players are ok with it but want to make sure the savings are distributed to veteran players' salaries and retired players' health care. I don't know why its even up to negotiation. The two sides agree to split the revenues by a certain percentage. Then within the players' percentage, they should be able to decide how much go to rookies, how much to veterans, how much to benefits, how much to retired players. And why the owners should have any say in the matter is beyond me.
Players in the 70's and early 80's clearly needed a union. But unions in general have aquired too much power, and have, in many cases, outlived their usefullness. They've gone from championing basic human rights to holding a hammer over the heads of big business, demanding privelages and compensations well above and beyond the scope of what unions were first designed to obtain. It's this HAMMER that unions hold that I despise. IN many cases (certainly not all) unions have gone from oppressed members to oppressive organizations.Anti-trust laws were meant and designed to promote free and fair trade, but early on the gov't and the courts realized that free and fair trade did not always result in better service or products for the people. Some things were better off left as monopolies, but under such circumstances the gov't could, and should interven to ensure the monopoly played fair with the people...that they served the greater good instead of raping the people.The NFL provides a measureably better product as a pseudo-monopoly. Few people would argue that the NFL was better in the 70's without free agency or a cap, and very few would argue that the NFL would be better with a truly free labor market.The PLAYERS TODAY would like to challenge under anti-trust laws because they'll make more money. The truth is that if all anti-trust laws were enforced (free labor market equates to no salary cap or floor, no NFL draft...ALL players not under contract are FA's) the NFL would lose its edge...it could no longer provide the ultra-competitive product (real or imagined) that we have today. The NFL would eventually become far less profitable...and that lack of profits will deflate future salaries. In the end...EVERYONE EXCEPT THE CURRENT PLAYERS WOULD LOSE, including the fans!NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't re-organize as a single corporation with 32 subsidiaries. That would solve ALL of their problems.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Roger Goodell needs to go.
Similar threads
