********Press Conference********** (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Any such moves must be with the agreement of a certified union. 

I think you missed the part where there's a meeting next week to possibly decide to decertify the union

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream. I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends. At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

 

[Bri]

Any such moves must be with the agreement of a certified union. 

I think you missed the part where there's a meeting next week to possibly decide to decertify the union

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream. I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends. At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

decertifying is tricky and that would certainly go before a judge. I think, think, they vote to decertify and the union is disbanded. The NFL or some players bring it before a judge and claim this prevents them from working. Judge says either create a new union or re-certify the old one.They can't be forced to follow a CBA if no union exists. They can't decertify AND prevent people from working.

It'd be a real tug of war between these millionaires with their high priced lawyers

 

[Marvelous]

Any such moves must be with the agreement of a certified union. 

I think you missed the part where there's a meeting next week to possibly decide to decertify the union

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream. I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends. At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

Question: wouldn't a lockout be an action most likely to bring a lawsuit from the players? And doesn't a lockout kill the lucrative tv revenue?

 

[Big Score]

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream. I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends. At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

Yudkin,If the NFLPA is decertified and the players are no longer in a Union, who is it that the owners lockout?

 

[Marvelous]

Any such moves must be with the agreement of a certified union. 

I think you missed the part where there's a meeting next week to possibly decide to decertify the union

Nope. Didn't miss it at all. That was part of my point. The teams can't make changes without an agreement with a certified union. The union is decertifying to make that impossible. Therefore, the first time the teams try to install a new rule, they get sued. So, in conclusion... we are stuck with the rules of this CBA and all of its poison pills until either the courts get involved, or the union decides to either remain certified (or after a prolonged period to recertify) and engage in meaningful negotiations.

The one point I will disagree with: after 2007, there is no CBA. The CBA is a legal document. It will be expired and no longer applicable.It makes sense that the NFL owners use 2007, the uncapped year, as the baseline going forward. But they rate to implement a salary cap if they can far parity's sake. As long as they don't ruffle too many feathers, the will not get sued.

 

[David Yudkin]

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream.  I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends.  At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

Yudkin,If the NFLPA is decertified and the players are no longer in a Union, who is it that the owners lockout?

I'm no labor attorney, but from what I've been reading (pick any sports site you like), there have been breakdowns of outcomes from here on out, and an owners' lockout after the 2007 season was one of the options if no new CBA could be agreed upon. However, I believe the assumption was the NFLPA stayed together through 2007.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

I think they want at least a minimum of 60% of 'total revenue'.  I believe they were getting about 54% of 'shared revenue last season'.  Currently the owners are offering about 56.x% of 'total revenue'.

Gene Upshaw was quoted as saying "our number has to begin with a 6."

Yep. The difference between 56% and 60% is about $340 million.

Spread over 32 teams = $10.625 Million per team

$10.6M/8 years for new CBA = $1.3 Mill per year per team they are arguing aboutIf you really think this is the sticking point you are dreaming. That equates to like raising ticket prices a quarter. Or Beers a dime.

I'm not sure why you are dividing by 8 to come up with $1.3 million. The 10.6 million is a MINIMUM per year, as the salary cap has been ever expanding. With the bar set at $94.5 million this year, IIRC that is around $10 million more than last year. So the CBA were extended at the higheger percentage, low end of the scale would be . . .$10.625 million x 8 years = $85 million per team over the 8 years.

David, the $340 Million Dollars (which is the difference between 56.2% and 60% of Total Revenue) is for the Life of the new CBA. The new CBA is 8 years. So the players essentially want an additional $42 Mill/Year spent on their salaries League wide. Which is about $1.3 Mill per team more. That's how it was explained to me.I could definitly be wrong though.

 

[ChampBailey24]

I think David is right. I really dont think the players would be arguing for 1.3M more per team.

 

[GregR_2]

David, the $340 Million Dollars (which is the difference between 56.2% and 60% of Total Revenue) is for the Life of the new CBA. The new CBA is 8 years. So the players essentially want an additional $42 Mill/Year spent on their salaries League wide. Which is about $1.3 Mill per team more. That's how it was explained to me.

I could definitly be wrong though.

David's right. Google some news stories and you can find where an NFL owner said it was about $10 mil per team per year.

 

[Hobbes]

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

Absolutely.Plus I'm sure the Owners would say the game is the product not the players.

60% for 50(or so) players 40% for one owner seems odd to begin with, multiply that by number of teams and you begin to see how different this is from most real world comparisons.

Maybe I'm confused, but if 60% goes to the players, doesn't the other 40% go to a combination of staff, workers, trainers, etc.? Sure the owners get a nice cut, but it's not 40%

This is exactly right...I think it is a BIG deal for the players to guarantee a portion of TOTAL revenue in the first place. If the team gets 40% and the player salaries are 60% then the return to the Owner(s) will be substantially less...some of the things that would come out of the "Owners" share...Coaching salaries (not cheap anymore)

Team executives (never been cheap)

Trainers and daily staff

Gameday staff (comes out of stadium revenue but still a cost)

Equipment, uniforms, footballs, etc.

Medical staff, procedures, etc.

Taxes...Social Security and Medicare for all employees (including players)...wanna guess how much that is for a $100M cap? Intangible tax on all team assets, federal and state unemployment taxes, income tax on final team profit (if any).

Cost of Goods sold for all merchandise

Building and maintenance of all team owned facilities

Any rent that must be paid to unowned facilities (some stadiums fall in to this category)

Transportation (can you say "bus travel" from now on?)

Travel Accomodations (Motel 6)

Player daily Per Diem amounts (more than I get)

Championship rings (for the lucky few)

I am sure that I am leaving out a bunch of stuff...but the players should be happy with ANY guarantee based on total revenue....certainly 56% is generous.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream. I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends. At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

Yudkin,If the NFLPA is decertified and the players are no longer in a Union, who is it that the owners lockout?

I'm no labor attorney, but from what I've been reading (pick any sports site you like), there have been breakdowns of outcomes from here on out, and an owners' lockout after the 2007 season was one of the options if no new CBA could be agreed upon. However, I believe the assumption was the NFLPA stayed together through 2007.

I'm not a labor attorney either, but when I was a third-year law student, I actually wrote my big paper for my collective bargaining class arguing that the NFL players should de-certify their union.If the players de-certify after 2007, the owners cannot do a lockout (just like the players could not strike). Moreover, there will be no salary cap, no draft, no transition tags or franchise tags, no right-of-first-refusal or restricted free agency. All of these practices, if challenged, would likely be held to violate the antitrust laws.

Players not under contract would be unrestricted free agents. That would include rookies as well as players who've been cut or have played out their contracts. Being a star player who is an unrestricted free agent in a world without a salary cap would be a good thing. There would also be no minimum salaries, however, so the bottom-rung players would probably make less. But overall, without exclusive bargaining rights (from, e.g., the draft) and without a salary cap, the players would probably make more money as a group.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hey Sharks,

I found this summation of the labor woes/implications/major players from the Dallas Morning News to be helpful.

Labor Impasse Implications 3/2/06

FWIW.

Mark

Excellent link Mark.J

 

[Big Score]

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream.  I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends.  At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

Yudkin,If the NFLPA is decertified and the players are no longer in a Union, who is it that the owners lockout?

I'm no labor attorney, but from what I've been reading (pick any sports site you like), there have been breakdowns of outcomes from here on out, and an owners' lockout after the 2007 season was one of the options if no new CBA could be agreed upon. However, I believe the assumption was the NFLPA stayed together through 2007.

I'm not a labor attorney either, but as a third-year law student, I actually wrote my big paper for my collective bargaining class arguing that the NFL players should de-certify their union.If the players de-certify after 2007, the owners cannot do a lockout (just like the players could not strike). Moreover, there will be no salary cap, no draft, no transition tags or franchise tags, no right-of-first-refusal or restricted free agency. All of these practices, if challenged, would likely be held to violate the antitrust laws.

Players not under contract would be unrestricted free agents. That would include rookies as well as players who've been cut or have played out their contracts. Being a star player who is an unrestricted free agent in a world without a salary cap would be a good thing. There would also be no minimum salaries, however, so the bottom-rung players would probably make less. But overall, without exclusive bargaining rights (from, e.g., the draft) and without a salary cap, the players would probably make more money as a group.

Thanks Tremblay,The bolded part was my understanding also and is certainly the reasoning behind Upshaw stating the NFLPA will decertify after the 2006 season.

 

[Bri]

here's a good article from last summer

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05241/561998.stm

 

[TheLaw]

The CBA runs through the 2007 season, so I don't see how the union could decertify itself midstream.  I doubt either side will be doing anything rash until after that year ends.  At that point, worst case scenario I suspect would be a lockout by the owners.

Yudkin,If the NFLPA is decertified and the players are no longer in a Union, who is it that the owners lockout?

I'm no labor attorney, but from what I've been reading (pick any sports site you like), there have been breakdowns of outcomes from here on out, and an owners' lockout after the 2007 season was one of the options if no new CBA could be agreed upon. However, I believe the assumption was the NFLPA stayed together through 2007.

I'm not a labor attorney either, but as a third-year law student, I actually wrote my big paper for my collective bargaining class arguing that the NFL players should de-certify their union.If the players de-certify after 2007, the owners cannot do a lockout (just like the players could not strike). Moreover, there will be no salary cap, no draft, no transition tags or franchise tags, no right-of-first-refusal or restricted free agency. All of these practices, if challenged, would likely be held to violate the antitrust laws.

Players not under contract would be unrestricted free agents. That would include rookies as well as players who've been cut or have played out their contracts. Being a star player who is an unrestricted free agent in a world without a salary cap would be a good thing. There would also be no minimum salaries, however, so the bottom-rung players would probably make less. But overall, without exclusive bargaining rights (from, e.g., the draft) and without a salary cap, the players would probably make more money as a group.

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc. NFLPA decertified at least once already IIRC. I'm not sure how easy a process it is.There def. will be a lockout/strike, however, if the union stays and we have the uncapped season. Upshaw is no Don Fehr, but he has gone on record saying once there is no cap, there will never be a cap. I'm confused on what variation of the CBA would continue to be binding once it expires . . . the conditions of the last season (uncapped, 6years for UFA, etc.) or what was in place in the CBA for the years other than the final CBA season.

 

[Beaumont]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc. NFLPA decertified at least once already IIRC. I'm not sure how easy a process it is.

There def. will be a lockout/strike, however, if the union stays and we have the uncapped season. Upshaw is no Don Fehr, but he has gone on record saying once there is no cap, there will never be a cap. I'm confused on what variation of the CBA would continue to be binding once it expires . . . the conditions of the last season (uncapped, 6years for UFA, etc.) or what was in place in the CBA for the years other than the final CBA season.

Yes, they decertified prior to filing and winning the Freeman McNeil suit ...cut aqnd paste ...

The 1987 strike and decertification

The NFLPA struck for a month in 1987. On this occasion, however, the league chose to present games with replacement players, mostly those who had been cut in preseason, and a few veterans who crossed the picket lines. The television networks showcased these games as if these hastily assembled teams were the same quality as the veterans who were out on strike. Faced with cracks in its members' support and the willingness of the networks to broadcast the games, the union voted to go back to work on October 15, 1987. It filed a new antitrust suit that same day.

The Court of Appeals ultimately rejected that suit on the ground that the labor exemption from antitrust liability protected the employers, even though the union was no longer party to a collective bargaining agreement that would have permitted the practices that the union was challenging. In response, the union formally disclaimed any interest in representing NFL players in collective bargaining and reformed itself as a professional organization in 1989. Having done that, the following year union members, led by Freeman McNeil of the New York Jets, brought a new antitrust action against the NFL challenging its free agency rules as an unlawful restraint of trade.

The players ultimately prevailed, after a jury trial on their claims, in that action. That verdict, the pendency of other antitrust cases and the threat of a class action filed by Reggie White, then with the Philadelphia Eagles, on behalf of all NFL players brought the parties back to the negotiating table. They finally agreed on a formula that permitted free agency in return for salary caps tied to a formula based on players' share of total league revenues.

 

[-OZ-]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc.

Wouldn't those simply be negotiated for, on an individual basis?Pension would be difficult, but that's why players have financial advisors.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc.

All of those things would be a matter of bargaining by individual players. Good players could easily bargain for a pension, insurance, and a signing bonus.Heck, even I've got medical insurance through my employer, and I'm certainly no Peyton Manning.

I'm confused on what variation of the CBA would continue to be binding once it expires . . . the conditions of the last season (uncapped, 6years for UFA, etc.) or what was in place in the CBA for the years other than the final CBA season.

There would be no CBA. Just like my employment isn't subject to the terms of a CBA, neither would Peyton Manning's be.

 

[-OZ-]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc.

All of those things would be a matter of bargaining by individual players. Good players could easily bargain for a pension, insurance, and a signing bonus.Heck, even I've got medical insurance through my employer, and I'm certainly no Peyton Manning.

I'm confused on what variation of the CBA would continue to be binding once it expires . . . the conditions of the last season (uncapped, 6years for UFA, etc.) or what was in place in the CBA for the years other than the final CBA season.

There would be no CBA. Just like my employment isn't subject to the terms of a CBA, neither would Peyton Manning's be.

Good stuff. Seems people are misunderstanding what the CBA actually does.

 

[TheLaw]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc.

All of those things would be a matter of bargaining by individual players. Good players could easily bargain for a pension, insurance, and a signing bonus.Heck, even I've got medical insurance through my employer, and I'm certainly no Peyton Manning.

I'm confused on what variation of the CBA would continue to be binding once it expires . . . the conditions of the last season (uncapped, 6years for UFA, etc.) or what was in place in the CBA for the years other than the final CBA season.

There would be no CBA. Just like my employment isn't subject to the terms of a CBA, neither would Peyton Manning's be.

When a CBA is in place and then expires, the employer continues to operate under the terms of the expired CBA until either a new one is negotiated, there is a strike, or there is a lockout. Business doesnt just stop with anarchy ensuing. My question is when the CBA expires in March 07 . . . if there is no lockout or strike . . . what are the terms in place the 07 no-cap etc. or the basic terms of the other 6 years?

 

[TheLaw]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc. 

Wouldn't those simply be negotiated for, on an individual basis?Pension would be difficult, but that's why players have financial advisors.

They could be, but I dont see owners jumping at the opportunity to do so. There was a reason why NFL players organized in the 1st place, and it wasnt free agency.

 

[Beaumont]

Conceptually, the only way that the teams can "collude" to have a draft and institute rules governing contracts and salary caps is if they have the agreements established through collective bargaining (the "labor exemption" to anti-trust laws) ...

The NFL actually needs a union so that it can have an agreement re: these things without being subject to anti-trust liability. The players' threat to decertify is simply a threat to remove the "labor exemption" and bring the NFL into federal court on anti-trust grounds and make chaos reign ...

No salary cap, no draft, nothing but players and teams and whatever contracts each player can negotiate with each individual team ...

Worst case scenario for NFL owners ...

 

[Bri]

IIRC there was no CBA from 87 til 92

 

[TheLaw]

Conceptually, the only way that the teams can "collude" to have a draft and institute rules governing contracts and salary caps is if they have the agreements established through collective bargaining (the "labor exemption" to anti-trust laws) ...

The NFL actually needs a union so that it can have an agreement re: these things without being subject to anti-trust liability. The players' threat to decertify is simply a threat to remove the "labor exemption" and bring the NFL into federal court on anti-trust grounds and make chaos reign ...

No salary cap, no draft, nothing but players and teams and whatever contracts each player can negotiate with each individual team ...

Worst case scenario for NFL owners ...

The owners could just take their ball and go home if they wanted to. Form a new league or merge with another etc.

 

[belljr]

Okay maybe I'm naive, but why when things like this are pressing do they wait to the least possible moment, why not start these negotiations like last summer?

Did they not learn anything from the NHL fiasco? Obviously the NHL is nowhere near the NFL in terms of a league and popularity.

Just seems to me if these things started sooner, there could have been more give and take.

 

[-OZ-]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc.

Wouldn't those simply be negotiated for, on an individual basis?Pension would be difficult, but that's why players have financial advisors.

They could be, but I dont see owners jumping at the opportunity to do so. There was a reason why NFL players organized in the 1st place, and it wasnt free agency.

Yes, there are many advantages to unionizing, and I'm not the one advocating dissolution. But, if the CBA did not exist, there would still be a league, just as there are many professions without unions. It's a form of power for the employees, usually benefitting the least powerful employee the most - in this case, the backup players. Peyton Manning, Vick, etc. would be just fine, but we'd see lesser players get hurt, and the teams who can't afford to keep up with the big boys hurt as well. In essence, the CBA works to even things out across the board, as much as possible.

 

[-OZ-]

Okay maybe I'm naive, but why when things like this are pressing do they wait to the least possible moment, why not start these negotiations like last summer?

Did they not learn anything from the NHL fiasco? Obviously the NHL is nowhere near the NFL in terms of a league and popularity.

Just seems to me if these things started sooner, there could have been more give and take.

A lot of businesses do this, as do many in negotiations. A lot of 11th hour deals take place in plea bargains, settlement disputes, etc. Basically the parties each wait for the other to give in.

 

[B-Deep]

So what about drug testing?

If there is no union, thus no CBA, could the league even HAVE a drug testing policy? Since that has been collectively bargained wouldn't it be out the window?

Every team could put drug testing in their contracts, but it would be on a contract by contract basis correct? Or at least a team by team basis?

 

[TheLaw]

Along with no pension, no insurance, no signing bonuses etc. 

Wouldn't those simply be negotiated for, on an individual basis?Pension would be difficult, but that's why players have financial advisors.

They could be, but I dont see owners jumping at the opportunity to do so. There was a reason why NFL players organized in the 1st place, and it wasnt free agency.

Yes, there are many advantages to unionizing, and I'm not the one advocating dissolution. But, if the CBA did not exist, there would still be a league, just as there are many professions without unions. It's a form of power for the employees, usually benefitting the least powerful employee the most - in this case, the backup players. Peyton Manning, Vick, etc. would be just fine, but we'd see lesser players get hurt, and the teams who can't afford to keep up with the big boys hurt as well. In essence, the CBA works to even things out across the board, as much as possible.

Have you guys read the history of the nflpa? Lots of info. there on where we have been and where we are now. To quote an anonymous owner, the players and owners are about to cut the head off of the golden goose. IMO the owners are being greedy regarding revenue sharing and DGR. I should dig up my paper on the NFLPA and CBA from 2001 and see if I changed my ideas on how to make the CBA better.

The National Football League was organized in 1920, but players had no representation until more than 35 years later. Free to do as they wished, owners gave the players no benefits at all—no health insurance, no life insurance, no pension, no minimum salary, no pay for pre-season games. Even worse—no salary protection for injured players.

Players started standing up for themselves in 1956. By one account, players for the Green Bay Packers requested clean jocks, socks and uniforms for two-a-day workouts. The owner refused; the players organized.

 

[David Yudkin]

Okay maybe I'm naive, but why when things like this are pressing do they wait to the least possible moment, why not start these negotiations like last summer?

Did they not learn anything from the NHL fiasco? Obviously the NHL is nowhere near the NFL in terms of a league and popularity.

Just seems to me if these things started sooner, there could have been more give and take.

The intent of the "uncapped year" as the final year of the CBA was to encourage getting a deal done to AVOID a mess like we have know.To that end, negotiations started--and failed--two years ago. Since that time, both sides have been reluctant and lackadiasical to get back together, and little progress was made up until recently (ie the 11th hour).

The bottom line on these things is 98% about the money, and there were warning signs all along the way that this was going to get messy. I have been pointing out that this was a serious issue in threads as far back as two years ago.

I concur that it never should have gotten this far, but most labor disbutes run into the same type of last hour negotiations and many spill over and wreak havoc.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When a CBA is in place and then expires, the employer continues to operate under the terms of the expired CBA until either a new one is negotiated, there is a strike, or there is a lockout.

Or until the union decertifies.

Business doesnt just stop with anarchy ensuing. My question is when the CBA expires in March 07 . . . if there is no lockout or strike . . . what are the terms in place the 07 no-cap etc. or the basic terms of the other 6 years?

My understanding is that after a CBA expires and there is an impass between the employer and the union, the employer is still protected from antitrust scrutiny for a reasonable period of time, and may seek to implement rules similar to the ones in the previous CBA during that reasonable period of time. So there would be no CBA, but employers would be justified in following the terms of the previous CBA -- so there's no clear answer in this case to what the NFL salary cap would be or if there would be one. It depends on what a court decides is reasonable.But if the collective bargaining relationship completely collapses, as evidenced by decertification of the union, there is no more protection from antitrust laws, and employees (players, in this caase) are free to bargain individually. In that case, there could be no salary cap or other restraint of trade -- there is no protection from the antitrust laws at all. Or, as you put it, there would be anarchy.

The issue is discussed here <-- transcript of oral argument before Supreme Court in 1996 Brown v. Redskins case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Conceptually, the only way that the teams can "collude" to have a draft and institute rules governing contracts and salary caps is if they have the agreements established through collective bargaining (the "labor exemption" to anti-trust laws) ...

The NFL actually needs a union so that it can have an agreement re: these things without being subject to anti-trust liability. The players' threat to decertify is simply a threat to remove the "labor exemption" and bring the NFL into federal court on anti-trust grounds and make chaos reign ...

No salary cap, no draft, nothing but players and teams and whatever contracts each player can negotiate with each individual team ...

Worst case scenario for NFL owners ...

Exactly right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

why not start these negotiations like last summer?

They started negotiations a couple years ago.

 

[Ditka is God]

That doesn't change the fact that the business has to remain profitable.

Absolutely.Plus I'm sure the Owners would say the game is the product not the players.

60% for 50(or so) players 40% for one owner seems odd to begin with, multiply that by number of teams and you begin to see how different this is from most real world comparisons.

Maybe I'm confused, but if 60% goes to the players, doesn't the other 40% go to a combination of staff, workers, trainers, etc.? Sure the owners get a nice cut, but it's not 40%

This is exactly right...I think it is a BIG deal for the players to guarantee a portion of TOTAL revenue in the first place. If the team gets 40% and the player salaries are 60% then the return to the Owner(s) will be substantially less...some of the things that would come out of the "Owners" share...Debt service (for many of the newer owners)

Coaching salaries (not cheap anymore)

Team executives (never been cheap)

Trainers and daily staff

Gameday staff (comes out of stadium revenue but still a cost)

Equipment, uniforms, footballs, etc.

Medical staff, procedures, etc.

Taxes...Social Security and Medicare for all employees (including players)...wanna guess how much that is for a $100M cap? Intangible tax on all team assets, federal and state unemployment taxes, income tax on final team profit (if any).

Cost of Goods sold for all merchandise

Building and maintenance of all team owned facilities

Any rent that must be paid to unowned facilities (some stadiums fall in to this category)

Transportation (can you say "bus travel" from now on?)

Travel Accomodations (Motel 6)

Player daily Per Diem amounts (more than I get)

Championship rings (for the lucky few)

I am sure that I am leaving out a bunch of stuff...but the players should be happy with ANY guarantee based on total revenue....certainly 56% is generous.

Good post. Added one entry.

 

[TheFanatic]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking. I wonder if McDonalds would hire me even though I'm over qualified. "Would you like to biggy size that?"

at McDonalds the workers make a product, enhance a product or whatever. In the NFL the players are the product.

No, the game is the product. The players enhance the game. You listen too much to the commercials that say "Brett Favre and the Packers vs Culpepper and the Vikes." It's a football game. Those two players never square off directly. Each leads a team to play a game. The game is the product not the players

 

[Bri]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking. I wonder if McDonalds would hire me even though I'm over qualified. "Would you like to biggy size that?"

at McDonalds the workers make a product, enhance a product or whatever. In the NFL the players are the product.

No, the game is the product. The players enhance the game. You listen too much to the commercials that say "Brett Favre and the Packers vs Culpepper and the Vikes." It's a football game. Those two players never square off directly. Each leads a team to play a game. The game is the product not the players

if that were true the USFL, XFL, NFLE, and arena league would have been more popular

 

[TheLaw]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking. I wonder if McDonalds would hire me even though I'm over qualified. "Would you like to biggy size that?"

at McDonalds the workers make a product, enhance a product or whatever. In the NFL the players are the product.

No, the game is the product. The players enhance the game. You listen too much to the commercials that say "Brett Favre and the Packers vs Culpepper and the Vikes." It's a football game. Those two players never square off directly. Each leads a team to play a game. The game is the product not the players

if that were true the USFL, XFL, NFLE, and arena league would have been more popular

If the union decertifies, or there is a lockout/strike - and the players from those leagues cross a picket-line or say form their own union and become the new "NFL" players the games would still be good and the now homeless former NFL players would either join the new union or have to cross lines themselves. I dont see the NFLPA having as much leverage as they think . . . plenty of replacement players out there to let the league continue without them long enough to break them as in 87.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what about drug testing?

If there is no union, thus no CBA, could the league even HAVE a drug testing policy? Since that has been collectively bargained wouldn't it be out the window?

Every team could put drug testing in their contracts, but it would be on a contract by contract basis correct? Or at least a team by team basis?

Interesting question. Sports leagues are in kind of a unique position vis-a-vis antitrust laws because while their constituent teams are supposed to compete with each other like any other competitive businesses would in certain areas (e.g., in attracting fans), they must collude in other areas (e.g., in deciding whether a team has to go ten yards for a first down, or fifteen yards).A drug testing policy could be viewed in the same light as, for example, restrictions on roster sizes. I don't think any court would strike down a league policy setting a maximum roster size, just like no court would strike down a rule imposing a maximum limit of eleven players that can be on the field for a team on a single play. These are just rules of the game. A drug testing policy could be viewed as any other eligibility requirement such as maximum roster limits, rather than being viewed as an illegal restraint of trade.

But it's an interesting question with no perfectly clear answer, IMO.

 

[B-Deep]

So what about drug testing?

If there is no union, thus no CBA, could the league even HAVE a drug testing policy? Since that has been collectively bargained wouldn't it be out the window?

Every team could put drug testing in their contracts, but it would be on a contract by contract basis correct? Or at least a team by team basis?

Interesting question. Sports leagues are in kind of a unique position vis-a-vis antitrust laws because while their constituent teams are supposed to compete with each other like any other competitive businesses would in certain areas (e.g., in attracting fans), they must collude in other areas (e.g., in deciding whether a team has to go ten yards for a first down, or fifteen yards).A drug testing policy could be viewed in the same light as, for example, restrictions on roster sizes. I don't think any court would strike down a league policy setting a maximum roster size, just like no court would strike down a rule imposing a maximum limit of eleven players that can be on the field for a team on a single play. These are just rules of the game. A drug testing policy could be viewed as any other eligibility requirement such as maximum roster limits, rather than being viewed as an illegal restraint of trade.

But it's an interesting question with no perfectly clear answer, IMO.

Thanks for the insight! My follow up was going to eb what about fines for illegal hits and the like, but I assume the answer is about the same.The drug issue is a big one though, since congress is all up in arms about it if the NFL could not enforce a strict drug policy it could force the issue in washington and make them pass something.

 

[David Yudkin]

Would drug enforcement still be viewed as a rule of the game? For example, Olympic athletes get tested for everything under the sun. If you want to play, you consent to drug testing. I don't see why football couldn't operate under the same structure.

 

[TheLaw]

NFL CBA TALK FAQ

What happens to players' benefits (401k plans, health coverage, etc.)?

In an uncapped 2007, owners no longer will be responsible for their annual payments of about $13 million apiece to 401k plans, health coverage, life insurance and other programs under the umbrella of benefits. The NFL matches each player's 401k investments 2-for-1.

What are the long-term ramifications for the league?

Barring a new CBA, the players either will be on strike or the owners will lock out the players in 2008. The union likely will decertify, and antitrust rules will apply. Also, the NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted into the current CBA. Players coming out of college could be free agents, with no salary restrictions. Open negotiations, including those for rookies coming out of college, will leave it to the players to get what they can get.

What are the long-term ramifications for the players?

If the union does decertify, it will cause a lot of uncertainty for the players. Teams could change the benefits package players receive, and there would be no organization to protect players' interests. Teams could offer salaries well below the currently established minimums.

 

[Bri]

So what about drug testing?

If there is no union, thus no CBA, could the league even HAVE a drug testing policy? Since that has been collectively bargained wouldn't it be out the window?

Every team could put drug testing in their contracts, but it would be on a contract by contract basis correct? Or at least a team by team basis?

Interesting question. Sports leagues are in kind of a unique position vis-a-vis antitrust laws because while their constituent teams are supposed to compete with each other like any other competitive businesses would in certain areas (e.g., in attracting fans), they must collude in other areas (e.g., in deciding whether a team has to go ten yards for a first down, or fifteen yards).A drug testing policy could be viewed in the same light as, for example, restrictions on roster sizes. I don't think any court would strike down a league policy setting a maximum roster size, just like no court would strike down a rule imposing a maximum limit of eleven players that can be on the field for a team on a single play. These are just rules of the game. A drug testing policy could be viewed as any other eligibility requirement such as maximum roster limits, rather than being viewed as an illegal restraint of trade.

But it's an interesting question with no perfectly clear answer, IMO.

Thanks for the insight! My follow up was going to eb what about fines for illegal hits and the like, but I assume the answer is about the same.The drug issue is a big one though, since congress is all up in arms about it if the NFL could not enforce a strict drug policy it could force the issue in washington and make them pass something.

Wouldn't police have to be involved then?

 

[B-Deep]

Would drug enforcement still be viewed as a rule of the game? For example, Olympic athletes get tested for everything under the sun. If you want to play, you consent to drug testing. I don't see why football couldn't operate under the same structure.

That makes sense to me. Just wasn't sure on the legality of it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Would drug enforcement still be viewed as a rule of the game? For example, Olympic athletes get tested for everything under the sun. If you want to play, you consent to drug testing. I don't see why football couldn't operate under the same structure.

I don't think there's any doubt that individual teams could require drug testing of its players.I believe B-Deep's question was whether the teams could all collude with each other to come up with a uniform drug-testing policy across the entire league. I think the answer is probably yes, but whenever all the individual teams collude with each other, antitrust issues are involved.

 

[Bri]

transcript

Commissioner Tagliabue Press Conference

Special League Meeting

New York Grand Hyatt Regency Hotel

March 2, 2006

Good morning. Obviously we concluded a short but important meeting with our owners. As I think you all know, we came here to explain to them why we’re deadlocked with the Players Association. The Players Association has on the table a demand which doesn’t recognize the reality of our league’s economics today. It’s a very excessive and unrealistic demand. So we went through that. The membership endorsed the conclusion that our labor committee – the eight owners on our Management Council Executive Committee – had reached when we met with them late yesterday afternoon and last evening. We are indeed deadlocked because of the excessive elements of the Players Association’s economic demand and that demand did not provide a basis for any further negotiations. That conclusion of the Management Council Executive Committee was unanimously endorsed by the entire membership. Any questions?

Q: What is the difference between 56 (percent of revenues) and 60 (percent)?

PT: It’s not the difference between 56 and 60. I don’t know where those numbers come from. It’s the fact that, in the last half dozen years, we’ve created a structure that has enabled us to build an unprecedented number of new stadiums, great stadiums, many of them with very large investments by owners and the league of private resources. Those stadiums, coupled with our TV revenues, have been the engine that has provided prosperity for the players. And the proposal that the Players Association has on the table basically is kind of a “have your cake and eat it, too” proposal. They want to have all the revenues that come out of these facilities and that come out of our growing media rights, but they do not in any way, shape or form recognize the cost to the owners of building those stadiums and investing in all of the things that it takes to generate the revenues. So it’s just an untenable economic proposition from the owners’ standpoint.

Q: Have you come to terms on what the revenue pool should be and now it’s a matter of determining a percentage?

PT: Until you have an agreement, you haven’t agreed to anything. We’ve got sort of tentative understandings that the revenue pool that would go into the salary cap would be certainly much broader than the old DGR concept, but the key thing is that they don’t recognize either in the definition of the revenue pool or in their economic proposal the cost structure that goes into generating the revenue.

Q: Is there a fundamental difference in opinion among the owners on revenue sharing?

PT: Nothing could be further away than that (assessment). The revenue sharing issue has never been an impediment in the past to getting an agreement with the Players Association. We’ve had this agreement in place now with a salary cap and free agency 1

2

for 13 seasons. I think ’06 is the thirteenth season. The revenue sharing issue has never been an impediment, and it’s not an impediment now to an agreement with the Players Association. The difference between now and the past is the fundamental change in the way they are defining their expectations as to the percentages that should go to the players and the unwillingness in this proposal, or inability, to recognize the very real costs that are associated with doing all the things the league has done to build new stadiums, generate revenues, invest in a whole range of enterprises that produces the revenue.

Q: What concerns you most about the current situation?

PT: We don’t have an agreement and there is a deadline at midnight tonight.

Q: What is the next step from here?

PT: We’re going to go back and talk about next steps, but I think at this point, it’s not about making phone calls. It’s about the Players Association fundamentally changing the character of their proposal and the character of their demands.

Q: How dire a situation is it?

PT: It’s about as dire as dire can be. We feel that one of the very positive things about the National Football League since the early ’90s has been our Collective Bargaining Agreement, one that works for both sides. We’ve put a proposal on the table that would extend that through 2011. We recognize that the last year of the current agreement is certainly not ideal in terms of operational realities. Without an extension, it’s certainly not a good situation for anybody.

Q: What kind of new rules for free agency will be in place during the uncapped year in 2007?

PT: We don’t have any new rules. I think I’ve basically covered everything that is important today. There has to be a fundamental change in their proposal for anything further of a constructive nature to begin to take place.

 

[B-Deep]

Would drug enforcement still be viewed as a rule of the game? For example, Olympic athletes get tested for everything under the sun. If you want to play, you consent to drug testing. I don't see why football couldn't operate under the same structure.

I don't think there's any doubt that individual teams could require drug testing of its players.I believe B-Deep's question was whether the teams could all collude with each to come up with a uniform drug-testing policy across the entire league. I think the answer is probably yes, but whenever all the individual teams collude with each other, antitrust issues are involved.

Right.Could a team that really needs a RB, for example, give Ricky a contract that did not test for marijuana?

Could some teams give tests less often than others?

If each team, and really each contract on that team, has its own drug policy then things could get kind of sticky. As I said earlier, if that makes congress think that steroids are not tested for enough, you could have legislation involved.

 

[David Yudkin]

FWIW, the final offer the NFLPA gave apparantly was 60.0%. The number they started with was 66.0%. IIRC, the number they currently use is around 54.5% and the number the owners offered was 56.2%.

And the revenue total being divied up was slated to be $8 billion x 6 years = $48 billion. So the differnce between the two sides was close to $2 billion over the 6 years.

$10 million per year x 32 teams x 6 years = $1.92 billion

 

[bagger.]

FWIW, the final offer the NFLPA gave apparantly was 60.0%. The number they started with was 66.0%. IIRC, the number they currently use is around 54.5% and the number the owners offered was 56.2%.

And the revenue total being divied up was slated to be $8 billion x 6 years = $48 billion. So the differnce between the two sides was close to $2 billion over the 6 years.

$10 million per year x 32 teams x 6 years = $1.92 billion

All the players need to do is come down another point. Seems pretty ridiculous on their end.

 

[-OZ-]

BTW... where is the number has to start with 6 coming from?

meaning 60% or more

Yep. Seems insane. I wonder what my boss would say if I told him that I want 60% of the companies total revenues or I'm walking. I wonder if McDonalds would hire me even though I'm over qualified. "Would you like to biggy size that?"

at McDonalds the workers make a product, enhance a product or whatever. In the NFL the players are the product.

No, the game is the product. The players enhance the game. You listen too much to the commercials that say "Brett Favre and the Packers vs Culpepper and the Vikes." It's a football game. Those two players never square off directly. Each leads a team to play a game. The game is the product not the players

if that were true the USFL, XFL, NFLE, and arena league would have been more popular

Not quite. the game is the product. The players enhance the game. Lesser players = no enhancement = less fans.

 

[tdog]

Does the CBA require that base year salaries are not guaranteed or is it merely allowed?

If a team can guarantee a salary, why can't the Redskins or another wealthy team simply guarantee some high uncapped 2007 salary in return for restructuring a current contract and get under the 2006 cap?