NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[coolnerd]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/source-free-agency-could-start-at-midnight/

As the league scrambles to process the meaning of the union’s decision to decertify, a high-level source with one team tells PFT that the league is preparing for the possibility that free agency could begin soon.

As in at midnight.

Per the source, the league is bracing for the possibility of a ruling from Judge David Doty that would force the doors to remain open, compelling the league to allow player movement and trades as soon as 12:01 a.m. Saturday.

Thus, by tomorrow at this time, Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha could (key word . . . “could”) have a new team.

Though no one knows for sure whether that will happen, there’s a fear/belief that it could, and teams are preparing for the possibility.

Holy crap, this could get very interesting.

 

[David Dodds]

I welcome our new Doty Overlords

 

[GroveDiesel]

Well Herm Edwards thinks we'll have football week 1. Hopefully all the lawyers play FF and realize they have to get this thing done!

Again, decertification actually INSURES football will continue and no games will be missed. Since there is no union to lockout and no union to strike, there WILL be an NFL season in 2011 starting Week 1.(Which the union knew all along. So their whole "Let Us Play" media campaign was just a PR stunt since they knew that the owners wouldn't be able to lock them out if they just decertified.)

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Well Herm Edwards thinks we'll have football week 1. Hopefully all the lawyers play FF and realize they have to get this thing done!

Again, decertification actually INSURES football will continue and no games will be missed. Since there is no union to lockout and no union to strike, there WILL be an NFL season in 2011 starting Week 1.

Exactly. And for this reason decertication is the players' best possible move as far as PR goes. Most fans aren't going to give a rat's ### what happens as long as there's football, so the players are free to pursue their legal strategy with very little pressure to resolve it quickly. Especially if the players are also getting paid (ought to help unity quite a bit), and the owners feel hamstrung by the knowledge that any anti-trust violations will cost them triple damages once this all shakes out.

 

[GridironMenace]

Everything the union has done has been a PR move. They have had no intention to ever come to an agreement without decertifying, unless the league agreed to a 50/50 split. This has been PR posturing at its worst. Someone please tell me why the league should agree to a 50/50 split.

 

[David Dodds]

Everything the union has done has been a PR move. They have had no intention to ever come to an agreement without decertifying, unless the league agreed to a 50/50 split. This has been PR posturing at its worst. Someone please tell me why the league should agree to a 50/50 split.

You do realize that there was a deal in place that the owners opted out of. The owners signed a deal, were making money, but wanted a better deal. The owners for the most part thought they could count on the $4B in TV money as a way to win any game of chicken with the players (as most desperately need the game checks/bonuses, etc) . And had that ruling went their way, I am certain they indeed could have won that battle. But with that ruling against them, both sides are racing against the clock to get a deal done. The negotiations have turned. By decertifying, the NFL can create any rules they want. So there will be football. The question really comes into play over what NFL rules will be in violations of anti-trust and how much will the owners be forced to pay when they lose those court battles.This is still all a game of chicken. The players know the deal they were offered will still exist a month from now. In fact, by decertifying they likely will get offered a better deal as the NFL could lose a fortune (and a lot of their rules) should this get settled in the courts.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

NFL: give me (another) billion dollars

Players: uh, what?

NFL: I said, give me another billion dollars every year.

Players: uh, why? We have an agreement in place for two more years.

NFL: not any more. We're canceling the last two years.

Players: uh, OK I guess.

NFL: so give me another billion dollars a year.

Players: uh, why?

NFL: because I'm broke.

Players: but the game is making more money now than it ever has. Ratings and revenue are through the roof. Team values have gone up 10% a year for two decades. Jerry Jones asset, the Cowboys, will be worth $100,000,000 more next year than it is this year if the last 21 years are any guide.

NFL: no. We're broke.

Players: well, uh, ok. Show me.

NFL: here, look at these profit numbers.

Players: uh, these look a little funny. What are you counting as expenses?

NFL: none of your business.

Players: you want a billion dollars a year and you're not willing to show me that you need it?

NFL: give me a billion dollars.

Players: long walk, short pier.

NFL: you'll still end up with 50% this way.

Players: but you're not going to prove that?

NFL: right.

Players: ok, we'll agree to your 50% number then - we'll take half the revenue. No need to see the expenses that way. Could be something embarrassing in there after all.

NFL: that's ridiculous!

Players: but you said it would be 50%?

NFL: greedy players. We're going to lock you out.

Players: Lockout eh? Interesting you should bring that up.

NFL: why?

Players: we were just looking over this e-mail from two years ago that says you took less money from the TV networks in order to lock in $4 billion in the event of a lockout... you've been planning this for some time, haven't you?

NFL: uhhhhhh

Players: Judge says that's illegal. No money for you.

NFL: dammit! Ok, we'll settle for half a billion dollars a year. See, we're compromising!

Players: why do you need a half a billion?

NFL: we're broke.

Players: errr... I think we've been here before, no? Show me it's true and we can talk.

NFL: no.

Players: if you've been planning this for more than two years I'm a little bit worried that maybe you've been taking on some extra expenses to make those 'profit' numbers look a little weak.

NFL: you can't prove that!

Players: exactly - so we'd like to see some actual expense data.

NFL: no.

Players: ok, this is getting old. See you in court.

NFL: dammit! Quick, Goodell, go tell the world about how greedy the players are!

 

[GroveDiesel]

Uh oh. Von Miller is one of 9 players that have filed suit against the NFL. So what does that mean? No draft for 2011 potentially!?

 

[cobalt_27]

The players can go #### themselves.

 

[Mello]

Very

 

[wazoo11]

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Well Herm Edwards thinks we'll have football week 1. Hopefully all the lawyers play FF and realize they have to get this thing done!

Again, decertification actually INSURES football will continue and no games will be missed. Since there is no union to lockout and no union to strike, there WILL be an NFL season in 2011 starting Week 1.(Which the union knew all along. So their whole "Let Us Play" media campaign was just a PR stunt since they knew that the owners wouldn't be able to lock them out if they just decertified.)

Uh oh. Von Miller is one of 9 players that have filed suit against the NFL. So what does that mean? No draft for 2011 potentially!?

seems like you are throwing alot of conjecture in this thread.I have yet to hear anyting about for sure football next year

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That didn't take long:

MINNEAPOLIS – MVP Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are among the players who have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL to prevent a lockout.Just after the players' union decertified Friday, the players filed suit against the NFL in U.S. District Court, seeking class-action against the league. They also filed a request for an injunction that would keep the NFL and the teams from engaging in a lockout.The collective bargaining agreement with the league expires at the end of Friday.Also included in the lawsuit are Vincent Jackson, Ben Leber, Logan Mankins, Brian Robison, Osi Umenyiora, Mike Vrabel, and Texas A&M linebacker Von Miller, who is entered in this year's draft.The players allege that the NFL conspired to deny the players' ability to market their services.

 

[Bezzerck]

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

This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

 

[David Dodds]

Are the owners really going to want to battle their star players in court? No way can the NFL let this happen. There is a reason the last owner offer was the best. If this goes to court, the owners piss off a ton of fans and would have to battle against the star players they need winning them games. This really has the makings of a first-class train wreck.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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

I believe that would be true if the 32 separate potential employers in the NFL weren't conspiring with each other to prevent players from working for whoever they want to work with. Just because Nike exists doesn't mean Reebok and Adidas can come to a joint agreement about employee wages or who can work for which company.

 

[Orange Crush]

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

There are two things covered by antitrust -- 1) monopolies and/or oligopolies (i.e. too much market share in the hands of too few companies that create market distortions), and 2) market competitors colluding to deny a free market from operating. You're thinking this falls under #1, when in fact the litigation being filed falls under #2.

 

[Chadstroma]

The players can go #### themselves.

Both the owners and the players can go bleep themselves in my book.

 

[David Dodds]

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

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

 

[Orange Crush]

Very

Here, here. That was very well done.

 

[Orange Crush]

Uh oh. Von Miller is one of 9 players that have filed suit against the NFL. So what does that mean? No draft for 2011 potentially!?

He's being included to prevent the owners from implementing the rookie salary cap and not the 2011 draft (which was agreed to under the old CBA and so should be shielded from antitrust litigation).

 

[Ksquared]

Everything the union has done has been a PR move. They have had no intention to ever come to an agreement without decertifying, unless the league agreed to a 50/50 split. This has been PR posturing at its worst. Someone please tell me why the league should agree to a 50/50 split.

I completely agree with this now that the last offer by the owners was spelled out. The time shows the Union decertified while they were still meeting. Those that are saying the Owners opted out, well big whoop de do... The players agreed to have that provision in the CBA. So the complaints about the players like the status quo and don't want to change I find laughable. What happens the next time the Union wants something and the owners say they like it the way it is. That is not negotiating and I don't like when either side does it in Labor issues.As an announcer on the NFL network put it. DeMaurice Smith is a litigator, not a deal maker. And the only ones that are going to win in this battle now is the lawyers. I guarantee the $9 billion they were trying to divy up will be cut dramatically by the general disgust of the average sports fan. The hardcore will follow like always, but I know 4 people in my 3 fantasy football leagues that have indicated they will likely quit and tell all the NFL to go jump in a lake.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

As an announcer on the NFL network put it...

Hey, anyone know who OWNS the NFL network?

 

[Ksquared]

As an announcer on the NFL network put it...

Hey, anyone know who OWNS the NFL network?

This was the radio network and if you have been listening to this channel in the last week, I was wondering if some of the hosts were going to be let go. They have pretty much across the board been espousing an anti-ownership position, they all state they are disgusted with both sides, but any interview or final statement is always put back on the owners. So unless you have listened, I would not use the "NFL" owns the channel as an excuse. Now I would not be surprised if a few of these hosts were "let go" in the near future, but so far that has not slowed any of them down.

 

[Ksquared]

rob you got me side tracked. Is the original statement true or not? In my reviewing Mr Smith over the last 2-3 months, he was the biggest reason I figured there would not be an agreement without some serious hardball. He is a litigator/union lawyer and his history showed it is always a "us vs them" attitude. There has been several articles written over the last year from Washington area papers stating that Mr Smith sees this (possible lockout when the articles were written) will be what puts him on the Mt Rushmore of labor leaders. Right next to Donald Fehr. I don't think there was any question he planned on decertifying from the beginning and what we will end up with is a league I will probably have lost a lot of interest in.

 

[Orange Crush]

rob you got me side tracked. Is the original statement true or not? In my reviewing Mr Smith over the last 2-3 months, he was the biggest reason I figured there would not be an agreement without some serious hardball. He is a litigator/union lawyer and his history showed it is always a "us vs them" attitude. There has been several articles written over the last year from Washington area papers stating that Mr Smith sees this (possible lockout when the articles were written) will be what puts him on the Mt Rushmore of labor leaders. Right next to Donald Fehr. I don't think there was any question he planned on decertifying from the beginning and what we will end up with is a league I will probably have lost a lot of interest in.

He identified early on that, IF a new deal could not be reached, decertification before the expiration of the (no longer) current CBA was the best strategy. We don't know how serious either side was about getting a deal done. It has been my belief that the owners were mostly taking a public hardline position as a negotiating position, but that they just wanted any deal that was better than what they were operating under, with an end target of $500M savings per year total. The problem is that their hardline position created a lot of distrust among the players. So much distrust that they were not able to overcome it late in the negotiations.

 

[Cripster]

The Dean of the Indiana law school spoke on the NFL network saying it would be a new legal precedent for there to be a season were judge Doty to block a lockout. I am confused. Weren't there 3-4 seasons in the late 80s early 90s where this was the case. What am I missing? What did I not understand?

 

[David Dodds]

I think the owners are going to regret how they handled all of this.

1. If you blow up the current deal, you need to show WHY that deal doesn't make sense. If they really needed the extra billion or so every year, they sure haven't done a good deal in making that case. They refused to show documents for most of these negotiations yet those documents were vital to understanding the real need for killing the last two years of the last deal.

2. By attempting to bully (threatening lockout, holding RFAs an extra year, not negotiating any big salaries last year, creating network TV deals that hurt the players should there be a lost season , etc), they essentially forced the players into taking their chances with the courts.

It will be interesting to see how this goes over the next few weeks. I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

rob you got me side tracked. Is the original statement true or not? In my reviewing Mr Smith over the last 2-3 months, he was the biggest reason I figured there would not be an agreement without some serious hardball. He is a litigator/union lawyer and his history showed it is always a "us vs them" attitude. There has been several articles written over the last year from Washington area papers stating that Mr Smith sees this (possible lockout when the articles were written) will be what puts him on the Mt Rushmore of labor leaders. Right next to Donald Fehr. I don't think there was any question he planned on decertifying from the beginning and what we will end up with is a league I will probably have lost a lot of interest in.

FWIW... I recognize that none of us really know how things went down. My one act play up there is pretty close to how I think it happened, but Having said... I actually said at one point that if the owners were going to lock the players out the players would be idiots not to decertify before it happened. It was literally their only leverage and once the CBA ended they would have lost it.

I'm not sure I agree with Crush on the owners' goals though. I think the owners had planned to lock the players for at least three years, and were prepping to go full NHL on them. But then Judge Doty ruled against them re: the $4b in TV money and those plans went out the window. That was when the tide turned.

At that point the owners may have been looking for whatever they could get, but they'd also lost the leverage, and in addition to the mistrust they'd created they had to deal with the players being emboldened. Plus (at least looking at it from the outside) they hadn't made a very persuasive case as to why the players should give anything up.

ETA: this post is mostly my speculation. YMMV - like I said, none of us really know what the plans were or why things unfolded the way they did.

 

[David Dodds]

rob you got me side tracked. Is the original statement true or not? In my reviewing Mr Smith over the last 2-3 months, he was the biggest reason I figured there would not be an agreement without some serious hardball. He is a litigator/union lawyer and his history showed it is always a "us vs them" attitude. There has been several articles written over the last year from Washington area papers stating that Mr Smith sees this (possible lockout when the articles were written) will be what puts him on the Mt Rushmore of labor leaders. Right next to Donald Fehr. I don't think there was any question he planned on decertifying from the beginning and what we will end up with is a league I will probably have lost a lot of interest in.

He identified early on that, IF a new deal could not be reached, decertification before the expiration of the (no longer) current CBA was the best strategy. We don't know how serious either side was about getting a deal done. It has been my belief that the owners were mostly taking a public hardline position as a negotiating position, but that they just wanted any deal that was better than what they were operating under, with an end target of $500M savings per year total. The problem is that their hardline position created a lot of distrust among the players. So much distrust that they were not able to overcome it late in the negotiations.

This is my take as well. The owners were looking to squeeze a little more from the pie. The NFLPA was happy to just try and hold serve and keep the status quo. If the owners had a legitimate reason for more revenue, they needed to make that case. They opted out as a group. So a deal they almost unanimously loved when they signed it, now hated it despite league numbers up everywhere. That's fine, but to think the players were just going to hand the owners more money because they asked for it is silly. Present the case for it or go away.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think the owners are going to regret how they handled all of this. 1. If you blow up the current deal, you need to show WHY that deal doesn't make sense. If they really needed the extra billion or so every year, they sure haven't done a good deal in making that case. They refused to show documents for most of these negotiations yet those documents were vital to understanding the real need for killing the last two years of the last deal. 2. By attempting to bully (threatening lockout, holding RFAs an extra year, not negotiating any big salaries last year, creating network TV deals that hurt the players should there be a lost season , etc), they essentially forced the players into taking their chances with the courts.It will be interesting to see how this goes over the next few weeks. I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I agree with this except that I think there's a chance the players may recognize that the game is better off and the total revenue is higher with some of the limitations that have been in place. I would, anyway. But the owners would pay a price for getting me to agree to those limitations in a new CBA. They certainly wouldn't get off simply reverting back to the same deal we had before. You gambled, you lost, you are going to pay me.

 

[David Dodds]

I think the owners are going to regret how they handled all of this. 1. If you blow up the current deal, you need to show WHY that deal doesn't make sense. If they really needed the extra billion or so every year, they sure haven't done a good deal in making that case. They refused to show documents for most of these negotiations yet those documents were vital to understanding the real need for killing the last two years of the last deal. 2. By attempting to bully (threatening lockout, holding RFAs an extra year, not negotiating any big salaries last year, creating network TV deals that hurt the players should there be a lost season , etc), they essentially forced the players into taking their chances with the courts.It will be interesting to see how this goes over the next few weeks. I think football will definitely be played even without a union. But unless the owners get a deal where the union agrees to call off the dogs, I think the NFL we knew is going to be gone. There will still be teams and players, but there will be a handful of super-franchises that are always in the hunt for the championships.

I agree with this except that I think there's a chance the players may recognize that the game is better off and the total revenue is higher with some of the limitations that have been in place. I would, anyway. But the owners would pay a price for getting me to agree to those limitations in a new CBA. They certainly wouldn't get off simply reverting back to the same deal we had before. You gambled, you lost, you are going to pay me.

In general, leagues that don't have salary caps pay the players collectively more money. It also eliminates the cheapskate owners as it really takes a commitment to bring about a winner with no caps. We know 3-5 teams already that would bet the farm every year to be the super bowl champ. And I guarantee you guys like Mark Cuban will get a franchise if they can do whatever it takes to win. Overall salaries will increase, because all of the dead wood will just keep getting cut. No salary cap ramifications to cutting a crappy player so you cut him and sign someone that helps you now. As seen in baseball, owners will be the worst enemy for owners as they drive up the pricetag for the elite guys.

 

[shadyridr]

Statement from NFL as per http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/blog/2011/03/nfl_the_union_left_a_very_good_deal_on_the_table.html

MARCH 11, 2011

NFL: "The union left a very good deal on the table"

This is the statement released by the NFL:

The fastest way to a fair agreement is for both the union and the clubs to continue the mediation process. Unfortunately, the players’ union has notified our office that at 4pm ET it had “decertified” and is walking away from mediation and collective bargaining, presumably to initiate the antitrust litigation it has been threatening to file. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, the clubs offered a deal that would have had no adverse financial impact upon veteran players in the early years and would meet the players’ financial demands in the latter years.

The union left a very good deal on the table. It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.

The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

At a time when thousands of employees are fighting for their collective bargaining rights, this union has chosen to abandon collective bargaining in favor of a sham ‘decertification’ and antitrust litigation. This litigation maneuver is built on the indisputably false premise that the NFLPA has stopped being a union and will merely delay the process of reaching an agreement.

The NFL clubs remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached. The NFL calls on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

Wow if this is true Im officially on the owners side now.

 

[Insomniac]

There will probably be a large majority that will fill that way, since the largest population centers have the most people by definition and will have a major advantage in raising much more $$ for their teams to succeed. So as I said, here comes MLB and the Yankees. The question will be what owner with a big enough potential $$ base and deep pockets will break the bank of the other teams. Will this guarantee they will win, no but they have wide margins of error where small market teams will not be able to make a mistake. And the small markets will become the KC Royals of football, develop a good player and he will go to a "big" market team when he is hitting his prime.

The revenue difference won't be as profound as they are in MLB under a "free market" for players. The biggest factor in MLB inequality is local TV revenue. The NFL shares the TV revenue equally and that's not going to change. The high revenue teams will have an edge but it won't be as much as the Yankees have in MLB.

 

[Insomniac]

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

The total revenue of the CFL,UFL and arena football can't be more than 5-10% of the NFL's revenue. There were other oil companies when Standard Oil was broken up. There were other computer companies when IBM faced an anti-trust suit 30+ years ago. I can come up with other examples. There's no doubt that the NFL will make that argument in whatever court they end up in but if their lawyers are counting on it being a winning argument the NFL owners should get some better lawyers.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

I don't see any evidence that the players are dictating terms here. It's a negotiation. The owners hold most of the cards.

The basic question is why that is. Is it because the owner have some unfair legal advantage(which has not been shown or suggested) or is it just because they are right?This is not meant as an example to be similar to this labor situation, but let's say I don't show up to work for some time frame. My employer decides to fire me. I file suit, as a means to end to "negotiate". While I may have the right to file a suit, would my employer hold the cards in this situation because they have some unfair legal advantage or just because this is well within their right to fire an employee because they don't show up for work.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Statement from NFL as per http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/blog/2011/03/nfl_the_union_left_a_very_good_deal_on_the_table.html

MARCH 11, 2011

NFL: "The union left a very good deal on the table"

This is the statement released by the NFL:

The fastest way to a fair agreement is for both the union and the clubs to continue the mediation process. Unfortunately, the players’ union has notified our office that at 4pm ET it had “decertified” and is walking away from mediation and collective bargaining, presumably to initiate the antitrust litigation it has been threatening to file. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, the clubs offered a deal that would have had no adverse financial impact upon veteran players in the early years and would meet the players’ financial demands in the latter years.

The union left a very good deal on the table. It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.

The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

At a time when thousands of employees are fighting for their collective bargaining rights, this union has chosen to abandon collective bargaining in favor of a sham ‘decertification’ and antitrust litigation. This litigation maneuver is built on the indisputably false premise that the NFLPA has stopped being a union and will merely delay the process of reaching an agreement.

The NFL clubs remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached. The NFL calls on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

Not really sure why the union would have rejected this deal, it seems pretty fair to me. The owners even softened their stance on an 18 game season. De Smith has some explaining to do.

In my opinion the NFLPA believes it has more leverage and power than it has, buoyed by the earlier Doty ruling. Their decision to decertify rather than extend negotiations and reach a bargained agreement will cost them.

I agree with CP. Also, when the above story gets out, I have a feeling the players will lose some of their empathy. I have thought all along that the players were overplaying their hand since they assume Judge Doty will assuredly rule (on all issues) in their favor. Maybe I am off-base, but if the legal system sides in the middle, the players will lose. They are putting much more on the line than most realize. Let's say it takes months or years for the court cases to finalize, the players have much risk exposure. I think the obvious risks are no salary cap (or especially floor), owners not wanting to spend money (even though some will), and even simple things like new revenue. I realize there are many more, but these are my first thoughts.

 

[FallenHero32]

Statement from NFL as per http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/blog/2011/03/nfl_the_union_left_a_very_good_deal_on_the_table.html

MARCH 11, 2011

NFL: "The union left a very good deal on the table"

This is the statement released by the NFL:

The fastest way to a fair agreement is for both the union and the clubs to continue the mediation process. Unfortunately, the players’ union has notified our office that at 4pm ET it had “decertified” and is walking away from mediation and collective bargaining, presumably to initiate the antitrust litigation it has been threatening to file. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, the clubs offered a deal that would have had no adverse financial impact upon veteran players in the early years and would meet the players’ financial demands in the latter years.

The union left a very good deal on the table. It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs.

The expanded health and safety rules would include a reduction in offseason programs of five weeks (from 14 to nine) and of OTAs (Organized Team Activities) from 14 to 10; significant reductions in the amount of contact in practices; and other changes.

At a time when thousands of employees are fighting for their collective bargaining rights, this union has chosen to abandon collective bargaining in favor of a sham ‘decertification’ and antitrust litigation. This litigation maneuver is built on the indisputably false premise that the NFLPA has stopped being a union and will merely delay the process of reaching an agreement.

The NFL clubs remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached. The NFL calls on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

Wow if this is true Im officially on the owners side now.

Don't believe everything that is printed. Having been part of union negotiations before I can assure you what is told to the media vs. what is said behind closed doors are two separate things.For example, my union tried getting us 12 hour shifts at work (Police).

Public Statement: We offered them 12 hour shifts and a raise! They are foolish not to take it.

Behind Closed Doors: Sure, you can have 12 hour shifts. But we have a right to end it at any time, your raise will be crap, we want full control of the entire schedule, no shift trades, no permanent shifts, and we are going to take 2 weeks of vacation from you.

The devil is in the details.

 

[JamesTheScot]

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

This seems like a legitimate argument to me. Anyone else?

There are two things covered by antitrust -- 1) monopolies and/or oligopolies (i.e. too much market share in the hands of too few companies that create market distortions), and 2) market competitors colluding to deny a free market from operating. You're thinking this falls under #1, when in fact the litigation being filed falls under #2.

Except that all owner actions through today were done under the CBA that said players ratified and agreed to by being members of the NFLPA. I don't see how opting out under an agreed to opt-out clause becomes in and of itself a violation of anti-trust.I agree that NFL owners have to be careful how they operate from here on out, but I'm not sure where past actions deprived these players of the ability to market themselves when the players union got the CBA it wanted last time which controlled how these named players were contracted with once they entered the league. Doty would seem to me to be in a tough place trying to justify now how contracts and operations that were acceptable under his oversight 24 hours ago under the CBA are now suddenly actionable now. That would basically undermine the very stability and reliance which argues in favor of a CBA. How can you operate according to a CBA that you can't trust to protect your actions performed under that CBA once it expires? It becomes something akin to retroactive criminalization of actions that were legal when commited.

I think it probably creates a capless free market as far as free agents are concerned. Construction of current contracts which were created under the framework of a CBA could be an interesting question, but so long as the owners don't get togeter and collude to set up some wink-wink unofficial salary cap and contract restrictions, I'm not seeing the basis for this suit as of right now.

But then again, anti-trust law has enough going on to keep attorneys busy practicing in anti-trust law alone. So I'm no expert.

 

[JamesTheScot]

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

The total revenue of the CFL,UFL and arena football can't be more than 5-10% of the NFL's revenue. There were other oil companies when Standard Oil was broken up. There were other computer companies when IBM faced an anti-trust suit 30+ years ago. I can come up with other examples. There's no doubt that the NFL will make that argument in whatever court they end up in but if their lawyers are counting on it being a winning argument the NFL owners should get some better lawyers.

But anti-trust is there to protect the consumer. Oil and phone companies sit squarely in the arena of public welfare and security.The NFL is an entertainment medium. What I know about anti-trust you could fit in a thimble. But it seems to me that an entertainment enterprise isn't as important as oil and utility companies are when it comes to protecting the consumer from market manipulation. We all have to buy gas and use the phone. Watch football on Sundays? Meh.And given that NFL salaries absolutely smoke the CFL and competitors, breaking up the NFL might actually shrink player salaries over all. Or imagine the courts going the opposite way and ruling that the NFL has to accept additional teams over an above the current 32 frachises.

 

[Saints-Man]

To be clear....neither side should be able to dictate drastic terms. Unions have their place...to prevent drastic terms. But they shouldn't be powerful enough to demand terms far in excess of free market value.

The players aren't dictating drastic terms. In fact, they only want to keep playing under the terms they've already negotiated--and the league has clearly gotten a lot more revenue since those terms were negotiated, and the value of the assets owners hold have gone way up in that time. So what's the pressure to reduce their compensation?

According to the financial records of the Green Bay Packers that were publicly released, the profits of the Green Bay Packers were dramatically reduced while the actual compensation for the players has increased greatly, even though the percentage of the players share has stayed constant. So, over time, the terms negotiated have tilted strongly in favor of the players. The amount of compensation of the the 53 player squad has increased dramatically over time, while we have proof that the Green Bay Packers profits have shrunk. It is quite conceivable, even probable, that in a few years a team like Green Bay(and several other small market teams like KC, Buffalo, Oakland, New Orleans and some others) could be losing money. While the current CBA has dramatically increased compensation(while the percentage remaining constant)for the players, we know there is at least one team(and probably several more) whose profits are declining and the possibility that these teams could be in the red in a few years. Not all teams mind you, but some of them. I am sure the New York teams, NE Patriots, the Cowboys, and Redskins(and maybe a few others) are almost obscenely profitable. But I think there are probably 8-16 teams whose profits have been in decline for a few years, and this includes teams that have been successful. That is why the NFL won't release their financial records. The records will indicate that some teams are headed for red ink while other teams are exploding in cash. The NFL will highlight the teams headed for red ink, and tje players will focus on the teams exploding in cash and claim that is why they don't need to change. All it would do is create a diversion and solve nothing.Personally, I think this is short sighted by the players because in 10-20 years you could have teams folding, which would of course reduce the number of jobs for the players. But hey, they would still have the same percentage of the pie, so they have that going for them.There are issues in this dispute that I side with the players, but the players(or at least the negotiating team) are mainly focused on the percentage they get. They could drop a few percentage points and still have significant raises over the next few years.

 

[daveR]

Maybe they got it right with MLB. This isn't business competition, it's entertainment -- games. Oh sure, there's big buck$ involved, but the teams don't compete except on the field.

I think the problem lies in trying to fit this square peg into business's round hole (ahem, so to speak).

Oh, BTW... DD, the union has to exist for the system to continue. They were legal partners in the previous deal.

 

[Insomniac]

rob you got me side tracked. Is the original statement true or not? In my reviewing Mr Smith over the last 2-3 months, he was the biggest reason I figured there would not be an agreement without some serious hardball. He is a litigator/union lawyer and his history showed it is always a "us vs them" attitude. There has been several articles written over the last year from Washington area papers stating that Mr Smith sees this (possible lockout when the articles were written) will be what puts him on the Mt Rushmore of labor leaders. Right next to Donald Fehr. I don't think there was any question he planned on decertifying from the beginning and what we will end up with is a league I will probably have lost a lot of interest in.

I believe the road to decertification was inevitable once the owners opted out. That was before Smith became the NFLPA leader. There's plenty of evidence that the owners wanted to follow a lockout strategy. The NFLPA lost every strike they ever engaged in and they'd also certainly lose a lockout. They won when they used anti-trust law. There's a 40 year track record that suggests their best strategy is litgation. If you need to hire a new leader in that situation you ought to hire a litigator.

 

[Saints-Man]

Just imagine the players that would be cut if there were no salary cap rules in place. What leverage would an overpaid player have if the team has no salary cap implication for a straight up cut? All restructuring would essentially become the team making a unilateral demand and the player either taking it or walking.

There were no salary cap rules in place this year, and we didn't see massive carnage among players under contract. If anything, there were fewer high-paid veterans cut this year than usual, unless you count Randy Moss twice.

To be fair, I think this past year was atypical because of the uncertainty of what might happen. Teams did not want to overspend over a projected salary cap value only to have that bite them in later years under a new improved CBA. Teams this past year still operated under the threat of an impending salary cap.

 

[Saints-Man]

I think it's important to remember a few things here in regards to the pro/anti-union arguments.

The NFL wants the players to have a union. They actually want to block the NFLPA from decertifying. Why? Because the owners can do a lot of things through collective bargaining that they would not be allowed to under the law, otherwise. Things like holding a rookie draft, having restricted free agency, franchise tags, revenue sharing, among many others.

Getting rid of all CBAs and Unions in football would be devastating to the league we love. It would quickly become very much like baseball, with big market teams buying up all the best players, and small market teams trying to remain above water by keeping costs down to the bare minimum. Would Chiefs fans still support their team when they had essentially no chance of competing for a title? Or Raiders fans? Bills? Jaguars? Vikings? Falcons?

The ability to compete would be completely linked to the profitability of the stadium. Which, I think, would give owners greater leverage in their dealings with cities over stadium construction. You want the city to have a winner? Then the city needs to pony up the dough. Though how much of that money goes to improving player salaries and how much goes into the owner's back pocket is solely determined by the whim of the owner. After all, Mike Brown got a sweetheart deal from the city of Cincinnati on his new stadium, yet he is still the biggest penny pencher in the league (team operating costs were the lowest in the league in '09, $35M lower than the league average, while their profits were $49.4M, $15M above the league average (per Forbes)).

I know others have said this before -- but this is really a battle between and among the NFL owners. Average club profits in '09 were $33.4M. But that ranged from a $7.7M loss (Dolphins) to a $143.3M gain (Cowboys). With a salary cap, and salary floor, the increasing revenues from some teams are raising the salary floor to a point where small market teams and teams in bad stadiums are having a hard time maintaining their normal levels of profitability (note: the Dolphins had over $20M in profits in '08 -- there's a lot of annual fluctuation in profitability based on player costs and how active the team is in free agency). So instead of increasing revenue sharing between the high revenue teams and low revenue teams (which they did under the last CBA), they want to remove that revenue sharing and instead decrease player costs for everyone.

Very I was attempting to make the same points, but your post summarizes the situation better than I did. The NFL has to find a way to balance the small and large market teams to keep the parts of the league that we love so much. This side fight with the NFLPA(or the former NFLPA now) is just one part of this battle.

 

[Da Guru]

As of now there in no NFL players union. The union has disbanded.

Does that mean the owners can impose any kind of working agreement they want for their employees??

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

As of now there in no NFL players union. The union has disbanded.Does that mean the owners can impose any kind of working agreement they want for their employees??

As long as it's legal.

 

[Sudsy]

I am a pro football fan only to the extent that it includes my team on an equal footing with others. If the league structure drives out the Packers, or makes them structurally inferior to the pont where they do not have an equal chance at winning, I will no longer watch football. I do not believe I am alone. Most of us are fans of the league, but through fandom for our teams. If the league becomes like baseball, with only 8 or so competitive teams, fans will leave and in droves. T.V. revenues will shrink, and drastically so.

Imagine if in NASCAR 8 teams fielded cars to current specifications and all the others had to buy and drive cars right off of a retail showroom floor. Very quickly it would be evident that the product is less desirable, less competitive, and so less interesting. People would leave, sponsers would leave, revenues would decline.

It is competitiveness and a fair shot for all which makes the league compelling.

 

[Saints-Man]

1) Has an NFL owner ever lost money over the course of his/her ownership? Has an NFL franchise ever sold for less than the previous time it changed hands?

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Remember, who thought the real estate market would decline so drastically? Had not real estate always appreciated?

2) If the NFL has existed under similar versions of this same agreement since 1993, why can't it continue to exist under this agreement?

Because the financial dynamics of the league have changed in the last 17 years. 17 years ago, the largest portion of each club's income was the shared TV revenue. But in the last 17 years, as these new super stadiums have been built, the teams with the money generating stadiums(see Orange Crush's post for a more eloquent explanation) are the ones flowing in cash while the other teams are falling further and further behind, some of them approaching red ink.

3) Does your answer to #2 above take into account that the game is MORE popular, and making MORE money than it ever has? Does it address the +8-10% TV ratings that will drive the next network contract?

That is just the next contract...but what about the contract after that? The disparity b/w high revenue clubs and lower revenue/losing revenue clubs is growing, and the increase in money from the next TV contract will be a bandaid on the deeper problem.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

As of now there in no NFL players union. The union has disbanded.Does that mean the owners can impose any kind of working agreement they want for their employees??

As long as it's legal.

so since the contracts are not guaranteed why not cut everyone and just collude and pay every player like 60k? Players dont really have a right to anything imo, most players cycle in and out of the league so fast.