NFLPA takes it's first beating

[Mr. WEO]

I would suggest he stop talking to the press and develop a realistic plan for the immediate future of his union membership. This was in no way a "win"--it was a resounding "no" by the special master and a preview of the fate of legal challenges to come.

[Mickey]

That sounds great in theory, but when one side owns every advantage you run the risk of coming to the table late and they have reduced what they offer. The longer this takes without the appearance of negotiating by the players the more leverage the players lose.

 

It's like a hand of poker, the owners have a very good hand and the players are hoping to draw the inside straight, but they stay in the hand despite the owners increasing the bet. In other words yes the only thing the players have right now is to posture, but I do not see that position changing as we get closer to the deadline. If that is the case you say that is when they get the best deal and I disagree. I have been through union negotiations from the employers side and we also held the cards. In the end the contract ran out was extended for 30 days 2 times and finally the union accepted a deal 15% lower than the original offer and 20% lower than the offer the company was "OK" to settle with. Sometimes working with the owners is a better move, I may be wrong, but the harsh nature of the NFLPA right now is doing them more harm than good. Honestly, they should be playing the sympathy root trying to get more funding from the league for after their careers are over. If they did that they would like like they are caring for the old timers and would have a chance to over the long term get more from the owners.

 

What isn't alwasy considered in these discusions is the effect it would have if the NFLPA decided to decertify itself. No discussion of the strenght of each sides bargaining position is compete without an analysis of the effect of decertification. Doing so would clear the way for an anti-trust suit against he league if it then tried to impose league wide rules governing player retention, salaries and free agency. The league would almost have to do just that in order for it to continue to operate. A lockout would also trigger an anti-trust suit if the Union is decertified.

 

I am not sure what you mean by the "harsh" position the NFLPA has taken. I think their position is simple, the league claims they need to change things to remain financially viable and the union has said, "fine, if thats true we will work something out but first show us your books so we know it really is a problem." The league has refused. On the other side, we know all there is to know about the Union's financial situation, right to the penny. It may be that the players do need to take a smaller cut but I am not willing to believe that on faith. No way.

 

The Saints have already took a vote and it was unanimous to decertify. I hope they are bluffing.

[Doc]

If I understand this correctly, what was going through the minds of TV exec's who figured, "OK, NFL owners, we will give you $4 billion even if there are no games". That is messed up

The networks receive a future credit if there are no games played. But the loss of immediate revenue in the face of paying out immediate huge money in this economy could be devastating. Likely the networks thought there would not be a work stoppage, hence the reason they agreed to it. They should have told the owners "no games, no money."

 

What isn't alwasy considered in these discusions is the effect it would have if the NFLPA decided to decertify itself. No discussion of the strenght of each sides bargaining position is compete without an analysis of the effect of decertification. Doing so would clear the way for an anti-trust suit against he league if it then tried to impose league wide rules governing player retention, salaries and free agency. The league would almost have to do just that in order for it to continue to operate. A lockout would also trigger an anti-trust suit if the Union is decertified.

 

I am not sure what you mean by the "harsh" position the NFLPA has taken. I think their position is simple, the league claims they need to change things to remain financially viable and the union has said, "fine, if thats true we will work something out but first show us your books so we know it really is a problem." The league has refused. On the other side, we know all there is to know about the Union's financial situation, right to the penny. It may be that the players do need to take a smaller cut but I am not willing to believe that on faith. No way.

 

The Saints have already took a vote and it was unanimous to decertify. I hope they are bluffing.

They aren't bluffing. And every team has taken a vote and the majority of players on each team are willing to decertify.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Doc

[Kelly the Dog]

I would suggest he stop talking to the press and develop a realistic plan for the immediate future of his union membership. This was in no way a "win"--it was a resounding "no" by the special master and a preview of the fate of legal challenges to come.

I'm sure he's trying to develop a plan, for better or worse. In a no win case, he got some small win of 7 million as The Special Master agreed with a small part of their claim. If he didn't try it, they would be 7 million poorer. I'm sure a third or more goes to lawyers but the fact is, they got 4-5 million out of nothing. I would have predicted, and so would you, that the resounding no would have been "you guys get squat", and not "you guys get seven million".

[Doc]

I'm sure he's trying to develop a plan, for better or worse. In a no win case, he got some small win of 7 million as The Special Master agreed with a small part of their claim. If he didn't try it, they would be 7 million poorer. I'm sure a third or more goes to lawyers but the fact is, they got 4-5 million out of nothing. I would have predicted, and so would you, that the resounding no would have been "you guys get squat", and not "you guys get seven million".

No surprise. Most people thought the NFL would prevail over ANI, not get blownout 0-9.

[silvermike]

There was at least a legitimate case to be made that the NFL did not act in good faith when it didn't try to maximize revenue in the last TV deal, as opposed to covering itself for a lockout. When they promised the players 59% or 60% or whatever, there's an implicit assumption that they will make the pie as big as possible. They have to at least act reasonably towards that goal, and they surely gave a discount to NBC/CBS/ESPN/FOX in order to get it. Thus, they were at least arguably shortchanging the players.

 

I don't know enough about it to say authoritatively that it was a great case, but it was a legit lawsuit, and had they won it (or if they win on appeal) they'll be in much, much stronger shape.

[JohnC]

The longer Smith waits, the more desperate his position becomes. And his public stance is the opposite of that of the NFL/owners. He is telling America there will be a lockout for sure and to blame the owners for the impasse.

 

 

It was a hopeless case. The players wanted to freeze the owner's war chest--that was their only bargaining chip, to prevent the owners from comfortably riding out a work stoppage. They got 7 million bucks--a significant chunk will likely go to the legal fees for this gambit. It is a huge defeat for the NFLPA. Work stops, the owners get payed. The players won't tolerate many missed checks.

 

 

 

Again, as time goes by and Smith layers on the animosity, his position becomes weaker. His only weapon now is decertification and strike. His players don't have the stomach for this. No way he can let it go until training camp. If there is no CBA by draft day, there will be no trades on that day. Also, FA is on hold until the new CBA is inked. There will be a lot of FA's putting the squeeze on the NFLPA to get a deal so they can cash in.

 

The league will ditch the 18 game season for a player pay cut. The sooner Smith realizes this, the better. Whatever public sympathy he thinks he's getting with his antics doesn't exist. For the money they are paid, the players are expected by the fans to show up for work.

 

Your way of negotiating is to immediately throw in the towel and bow down and kiss the kings' stinky feet. The union is aware of their lack of leverage. Sometimes a little fortitude and patience can get you a better deal, even if it is only incrementally better. The curent CBA doesn't expire until March. Why the desperation for the union to take the first offer or more accurately demand that the owners' make?

 

As you certainly know management/labor negotiations are full of a lot of bluster and hyperbole. So why not let the process (charade) run its own fictitious course and allow the attorneys on both sides to rack up more billable hours? The owners are not men who like to lose at anything, especially when it comes to money. Don't worry about them. All their needs will be met with sleepy Ralph on the sidelines predictably whining how he didn't get enough of the proceeds.

Edited February 2, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

The networks receive a future credit if there are no games played. But the loss of immediate revenue in the face of paying out immediate huge money in this economy could be devastating. Likely the networks thought there would not be a work stoppage, hence the reason they agreed to it. They should have told the owners "no games, no money."

 

 

They aren't bluffing. And every team has taken a vote and the majority of players on each team are willing to decertify.

 

 

No surprise. Most people thought the NFL would prevail over ANI, not get blownout 0-9.

Those votes don't mean anything right now becuase there was no consequence to that "vote" (last September, by the way).

 

Anyway, if they decertify, they can challenge the antitrust status of the NFL, but the court has hinted that the union won't prevail. The lawsuit may allow an injunction against a lockout and allow games to be played--but that's assuming there will be a lockout. If the league simply tells these guys to show up to training camp under their current contracts, then the players will have to show up, sign a new CBA or strike. Even decertification can be challenged by the league as a "sham" move--they would argue the NFLPA is still acting as a union and will reform after any settlement or contract is signed, as they did in the past. The courts might agree.

 

The ANI case was a bit of a long shot--but it's ramifications would have been massive and far reaching, particularly for the NFL. It would have granted them unprecedented and unrepealable power. No CBA would ever be needed and they would be insulated from further litgation. The Court obviously felt this was too much.

 

It was worth a try, given the potential benefit to the league (as oppossed to, say, a judgement of $7 million).

[Doc]

Those votes don't mean anything right now becuase there was no consequence to that "vote" (last September, by the way).

 

Anyway, if they decertify, they can challenge the antitrust status of the NFL, but the court has hinted that the union won't prevail. The lawsuit may allow an injunction against a lockout and allow games to be played--but that's assuming there will be a lockout. If the league simply tells these guys to show up to training camp under their current contracts, then the players will have to show up, sign a new CBA or strike. Even decertification can be challenged by the league as a "sham" move--they would argue the NFLPA is still acting as a union and will reform after any settlement or contract is signed, as they did in the past. The courts might agree.

 

The ANI case was a bit of a long shot--but it's ramifications would have been massive and far reaching, particularly for the NFL. It would have granted them unprecedented and unrepealable power. No CBA would ever be needed and they would be insulated from further litgation. The Court obviously felt this was too much.

 

It was worth a try, given the potential benefit to the league (as oppossed to, say, a judgement of $7 million).

True that the votes means little unless the players plan to follow through with it. However given that they publicly voted to decertify and have exhausted every other avenue, it wouldn't surprise me if they did. Where it goes from there, I have no idea.

[jester43]

the players need to get together and say f everybody- no superbowl THIS year. they are led to slaughterhouse anyway with all the brain injuries and crippling they take to help this sport rake in billions. there is no other form of tv programming that draws the audiences these guys get and yet the owners plead poverty. they are the most underpaid pro athletes in the world. the average pro is treated so badly i am almost disgusted with myself for watching sometimes.

[clayboy54]

What isn't alwasy considered in these discusions is the effect it would have if the NFLPA decided to decertify itself. No discussion of the strenght of each sides bargaining position is compete without an analysis of the effect of decertification. Doing so would clear the way for an anti-trust suit against he league if it then tried to impose league wide rules governing player retention, salaries and free agency. The league would almost have to do just that in order for it to continue to operate. A lockout would also trigger an anti-trust suit if the Union is decertified.

 

In a nutshell, this is exactly what happened to the ATC back in 1981. Like the PATCO situation, the NFLPA is also subject to federal law pertaining to their anti-trust status. Federal workers are not subject to the same anti-trust scrutiny as mainstream union employees and neither is the NFLPA. Therefore, your perceived threat of anti-trust action against the NFL is not realistic.

 

Decertification and subsequent work-stoppage could perhaps open a can of worms with regard to the federal law protecting the NFL from anti-trust obligations, however it most surely would not be popular among the voting public. Our legislators would certainly cave into public demand and attempt to have any anti-trust action dismissed on the grounds it is not applicable under the law. I would guess it would take a Supreme Court ruling to overturn this. That would be very unlikely to happen. And, if it did it would be years down the line.

 

In summary, I would believe that decertification and a work-stoppage would open the door for immediate hiring of ANY players wishing to be gainfully employed in the NFL. This would not only be "substitute" players like in the past, but also any and all current players who would no longer be covered by a non-existent NFLPA. Like the PATCO situation of 1981, life would go on without but a small hiccup and any leverage, however small that the players have now would be lost forever.

[reddogblitz]

If the players de certify and have a work stoppage. I'll put the over/under at 3 weeks before players start crossing the picket line. These guys will be kissing off hundreds of thousands of dollars each week they sit. I don't care who you are, you can only afford to do that for so long. Owners are counting on this. it worked last time.

[Mr. WEO]

In a nutshell, this is exactly what happened to the ATC back in 1981. Like the PATCO situation, the NFLPA is also subject to federal law pertaining to their anti-trust status. Federal workers are not subject to the same anti-trust scrutiny as mainstream union employees and neither is the NFLPA. Therefore, your perceived threat of anti-trust action against the NFL is not realistic.

 

Decertification and subsequent work-stoppage could perhaps open a can of worms with regard to the federal law protecting the NFL from anti-trust obligations, however it most surely would not be popular among the voting public. Our legislators would certainly cave into public demand and attempt to have any anti-trust action dismissed on the grounds it is not applicable under the law. I would guess it would take a Supreme Court ruling to overturn this. That would be very unlikely to happen. And, if it did it would be years down the line.

 

In summary, I would believe that decertification and a work-stoppage would open the door for immediate hiring of ANY players wishing to be gainfully employed in the NFL. This would not only be "substitute" players like in the past, but also any and all current players who would no longer be covered by a non-existent NFLPA. Like the PATCO situation of 1981, life would go on without but a small hiccup and any leverage, however small that the players have now would be lost forever.

You are correct, no legislator would ever submit a bill to change the antitrust status of the NFL. If they did, it would never get out of committee. It would spell the end of the league for small market teams, instantly.

 

But the NFLPA would certainly reconstitute itself and be back in business after their legal action, as it did in 1993. Hence the feeling by the league that decertification would be a "sham" move by the union to attack the antitrust protection of the league. A court might agree with this.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

the players need to get together and say f everybody- no superbowl THIS year. they are led to slaughterhouse anyway with all the brain injuries and crippling they take to help this sport rake in billions. there is no other form of tv programming that draws the audiences these guys get and yet the owners plead poverty. they are the most underpaid pro athletes in the world. the average pro is treated so badly i am almost disgusted with myself for watching sometimes.

[/quote

 

you were making a very dramatic and compelling point until you acknowledged your complicity in the scheme.

 

i figure it's a free country, the players play because they want to play, and the deal wil be what it will be. i don't feel that any of the players really sweat it too much that my day at the big game costs me a couple hundred dollars, and obviously the owner doesn't either. i don't begrudge the players that earn millions their millions, but you could also make as strong argument that Peyton Manning could do with a lot less if he was really concerned about some undrafted free agent/union brother signed at the start of the season for peanuts. If the argument for a union is that another party should share more of the gain, why not a union within a union to ensure equity across the board?

 

Why not? Because the have's have, and the have nots scramble for what they can get.

 

Such is life.

Edited February 2, 2011 by timmo1805

[Hplarrm]

Those votes don't mean anything right now becuase there was no consequence to that "vote" (last September, by the way).

 

Anyway, if they decertify, they can challenge the antitrust status of the NFL, but the court has hinted that the union won't prevail. The lawsuit may allow an injunction against a lockout and allow games to be played--but that's assuming there will be a lockout. If the league simply tells these guys to show up to training camp under their current contracts, then the players will have to show up, sign a new CBA or strike. Even decertification can be challenged by the league as a "sham" move--they would argue the NFLPA is still acting as a union and will reform after any settlement or contract is signed, as they did in the past. The courts might agree.

 

The ANI case was a bit of a long shot--but it's ramifications would have been massive and far reaching, particularly for the NFL. It would have granted them unprecedented and unrepealable power. No CBA would ever be needed and they would be insulated from further litgation. The Court obviously felt this was too much.

 

It was worth a try, given the potential benefit to the league (as oppossed to, say, a judgement of $7 million).

 

Judging from what actually happened in the past, the NFLPA should almost certainly decertify itself because their low leverage situation is just as you describe it.

 

They are simply going to lose and have their heads handed to them if they continue on in the same negotiating situation.

 

Just as it took the the total destruction of the NFLPA negotiating plan in the mid-80s lockout to get the traditional AFL-CIO guys like NFLPA head at the time Ed Garvey out of the way so that the players led by Gene Upshaw could move toward decertification (which led to the team owners and NFL run kicking and screaming to sign a CBA rather than actually compete in a free market) so to is the current events leading to a situation where the players can do best by simply kicking the team owners to the curb.

 

The reason I tune into the NFL each Sunday (and increasingly other days of the week) is to see the players compete. The team owners and the NFL as an entity add little to my enjoyment of the product.

 

Particularly since the actual money to drive this process is from the TV networks and the team owners are simply a middle man adding little value to the product, as a viewer I can easily do without them.

 

My sense is that the players as their leverage diminishes in the current set-up as you articulately lay out will also see decreasing advantages to having this middle man of the league scrape dollars off the top and add little to product.

 

I think the mistakes that the NFL has made in this situation are:

 

1. They took advantage of the colleges laying out the cash to train and develop the players so that they did not have to lay out the cash other leagues like MLB and the NHL lay out to sign speculative contracts with teenagers. Instead they laid this cost of to the colleges (which were happy to take it on as it gave them huge profits from the college bowl situation). The problem for the NFL though is that though they made a bunch of nickels by laying this cost off (often to taxpayers who paid for football mills like U. Nebraska and other state schools) is that they did not buy the loyalty of players as youths but not until adulthood.

 

Most players are testosterone driven steroid infused idiots. However, there is a talented tenth of players like and Upshaw, Troy Vincent or Takeo Spikes who spend their off-seasons at Ivy League business schools understanding the business. This talented tenth are likely in my mind to lead the players away to a solution that brings them more cash upfront from the TV networks and has the additional advantage of getting rid of the middle man owners who add little to the product.

 

In the old days the owner added cash, but in the new economy there is cash lots of places and the team owners are really just an added burden.

 

2. I think the team owners miscalculated in simply assuming that because the vast majority of the players are simply drugged show ponies that all of them are the same. They failed to understand that a side effect of then getting others to pat for training of their workers that they also now would face and educated adult talented tenth of players.

 

it was this Upshaw led crew which took advantage of the players routinely being used to following orders which they had done since high school to really galvanize and lead the NFLPA.

 

The players and owners were given a clear example with the first CBA battle how to win this fight by forcing the owners to choose between the more socialistic CBA model or the a free-market. The irony here (which folks like Bill Maher are now recognizing and publicizing) that there is much better profit to be made in the more socialistic model embodied in the CBA than in a free market model where team owners actually competed against each other.

 

What this current fight is setting up is the likely realization by the talented tenth of the players that they will be more money to be made by not having to split the take with team owners who really add little value to the final product.

 

I think the players might not be willing to take much risk under the current CBA. However, as it becomes clearer that the owners are likely to win due to decisions like the NFL court win and the leverage situation which is obvious enough that even outsiders like you and me can see it, the situation is one where the talented tenth of MFL players can lead their fellow overly proud colleagues to pull off a maneuver like the one which brought the CBA into being/

 

No one knows for sure (do you really want to claim you do) so we will see.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Judging from what actually happened in the past, the NFLPA should almost certainly decertify itself because their low leverage situation is just as you describe it.

 

They are simply going to lose and have their heads handed to them if they continue on in the same negotiating situation.

 

Just as it took the the total destruction of the NFLPA negotiating plan in the mid-80s lockout to get the traditional AFL-CIO guys like NFLPA head at the time Ed Garvey out of the way so that the players led by Gene Upshaw could move toward decertification (which led to the team owners and NFL run kicking and screaming to sign a CBA rather than actually compete in a free market) so to is the current events leading to a situation where the players can do best by simply kicking the team owners to the curb.

 

The reason I tune into the NFL each Sunday (and increasingly other days of the week) is to see the players compete. The team owners and the NFL as an entity add little to my enjoyment of the product.

 

Particularly since the actual money to drive this process is from the TV networks and the team owners are simply a middle man adding little value to the product, as a viewer I can easily do without them.

 

My sense is that the players as their leverage diminishes in the current set-up as you articulately lay out will also see decreasing advantages to having this middle man of the league scrape dollars off the top and add little to product.

 

I think the mistakes that the NFL has made in this situation are:

 

1. They took advantage of the colleges laying out the cash to train and develop the players so that they did not have to lay out the cash other leagues like MLB and the NHL lay out to sign speculative contracts with teenagers. Instead they laid this cost of to the colleges (which were happy to take it on as it gave them huge profits from the college bowl situation). The problem for the NFL though is that though they made a bunch of nickels by laying this cost off (often to taxpayers who paid for football mills like U. Nebraska and other state schools) is that they did not buy the loyalty of players as youths but not until adulthood.

 

Most players are testosterone driven steroid infused idiots. However, there is a talented tenth of players like and Upshaw, Troy Vincent or Takeo Spikes who spend their off-seasons at Ivy League business schools understanding the business. This talented tenth are likely in my mind to lead the players away to a solution that brings them more cash upfront from the TV networks and has the additional advantage of getting rid of the middle man owners who add little to the product.

 

In the old days the owner added cash, but in the new economy there is cash lots of places and the team owners are really just an added burden.

 

2. I think the team owners miscalculated in simply assuming that because the vast majority of the players are simply drugged show ponies that all of them are the same. They failed to understand that a side effect of then getting others to pat for training of their workers that they also now would face and educated adult talented tenth of players.

 

it was this Upshaw led crew which took advantage of the players routinely being used to following orders which they had done since high school to really galvanize and lead the NFLPA.

 

The players and owners were given a clear example with the first CBA battle how to win this fight by forcing the owners to choose between the more socialistic CBA model or the a free-market. The irony here (which folks like Bill Maher are now recognizing and publicizing) that there is much better profit to be made in the more socialistic model embodied in the CBA than in a free market model where team owners actually competed against each other.

 

What this current fight is setting up is the likely realization by the talented tenth of the players that they will be more money to be made by not having to split the take with team owners who really add little value to the final product.

 

I think the players might not be willing to take much risk under the current CBA. However, as it becomes clearer that the owners are likely to win due to decisions like the NFL court win and the leverage situation which is obvious enough that even outsiders like you and me can see it, the situation is one where the talented tenth of MFL players can lead their fellow overly proud colleagues to pull off a maneuver like the one which brought the CBA into being/

 

No one knows for sure (do you really want to claim you do) so we will see.

 

 

Assuming this plays out the way you think it might, how long before 10% of the great unwashed 90% see the talented tenth as middlemen lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else? Sooner or later, the players represented by the union must surely see that some are becoming fabulously wealthy while playing for a relative pittance themselves.

 

I also think the Bill Maher analogy is appropriate. Here's a guy likely making millions working for a corporation that has developed a brand through years of careful planning and development. Yeah, I know he was a modestly successful stand-up comedian, but HBO gave him a forum to express his views consistently and regularly. I'd bet he makes loads more than some that work for him, I'd bet his cars are nicer and his home(s) larger. It's no different with ownership/marquis players/and the rank and file, is it?

 

Let's be fair--the player's union would take every dollar that the nfl owner's group offered even if it ended up killing the nfl. And, likewise the owner's would be very happy if the player decided that they only wanted 30% of the net proceeds of the league.

 

As to your point about middlemen...I disagree. The NFL brand is what brings in the revenue. Other leagues have come and gone, and yet there is something magical about the thought of watching The Packers from Green Bay play those guys from the Steel mill in Pittsburgh, even though many of the guys from both teams roll up to the game in mercedes suv's and tricked out hummers. The NFL brand is made up of all the pieces of the puzzle---the players, the league, the officials, and even the owners. That's what makes this ongoing battle unfortunate. The viewers who seek to enjoy 3 hours or so on a weekend, who watch the games and buy the gear and so on ultimately lose if it gets really ugly. That's nott o say it couldn't all blow up and the nfl fade away, but it seems unlikely.

 

I agree with one point you made--who the heck knows where this ends up. I hope the billionares, millionares and hundred-thousandares get this all worked out by the season opener.

[Hplarrm]

The NFL brand is what brings in the revenue. Other leagues have come and gone, and yet there is something magical about the thought of watching The Packers from Green Bay play those guys from the Steel mill in Pittsburgh, even though many of the guys from both teams roll up to the game in mercedes suv's and tricked out hummers. The NFL brand is made up of all the pieces of the puzzle---the players, the league, the officials, and even the owners. That's what makes this ongoing battle unfortunate. The viewers who seek to enjoy 3 hours or so on a weekend, who watch the games and buy the gear and so on ultimately lose if it gets really ugly. That's nott o say it couldn't all blow up and the nfl fade away, but it seems unlikely.

 

 

I think the NFL brand point is an interesting one which I think many of the biggest Buffalo bashers on TSW ignore. Will the Bills leave Buffalo when Mr. Ralph kicks the big one?

 

Maybe and really no one knows.

 

However, I do find it amusing that some try to treat this as a definite outcome as there is clearly much more money to be made by the individual owner in LA or some other town. This is flat-out true but it misses the point that the decision about new ownership of the franchise is one which will be determined not by who has the deepest pockets but by the NFL which mandates 75% approval by the current owners to approve the sale.

 

Thus by rule (and by reality as the 75% is likely to go to what makes them the most money) the 75% are likely to get their largest take not from selling the franchise to the highest bidder (Osana Bin Laden might have the most cash but even if he was the highest bidder his ownership would do such damage to the franchise that clearly there is a value higher than the deepest pocket).

 

In the end it is the NFL brand which delivers the cash to the NFL. The Bills value to the NFL is actually found not in the value of 1/31st of the franchise fee that each owner gets by selling to the highest bidder, but in fact by preserving the brand name so that one can set up multiple new franchises in Mexico City, Tokyo, Berlin, etc. These places provide access to more eyeballs which is what the real cash cow the TV networks want.

 

Buffalo is most likely to remain a franchise as its presence in the NFL provides a connection to old AFL and the original brand. The NFL is unlikely to simply toss this asset. I really doubt that the Bills will move.

 

As far as the NFLPA and decertifying goes. I agree it also wants to defend the NFL brand. However, while the owners are likely more committed to the socialist style market organizing in the current CBA because it generates more $ than a free market approach, I think the players actually make more scratch from a free market.

 

I think the players do better financially from a system which sees the NFL weakened but still around competing for eyeballs with a new league which is based on the most marketable players.

 

Just as the emergence of the AFL cranked up player salaries and even the failed USFL cranked up player salaries (ask Jim Kelly) so to would the players do better overall and even individually if a new league offered competition to the NFL.

 

Rather than killing the golden goose, I think the players do better with the NFL brand being maintained but another competitive mechanism being created. Just like Bill Maher the players make more money with market competition.

[CosmicBills]

I still don't understand why people are saying the players are going to be the ones calling for a work stoppage. That just isn't the case. The owners are locking them out. The owners are the ones that want the change -- the players just want it to remain the same.

 

It doesn't help that the networks are in bed with the NFL (of course) and refuse to air NFLPA ads like this one out of fear of angering the Owners.

[Delete This Account]

my guess is a deal's done by july. there's no pressing interest to get one done at this point. owners are lined up for the long haul (much like the NHL owners were in 2004-05), and the union seems intent on playing its -- as some have pointed out here -- relatively weak hand.

i wrote this a while back here, so sorry for repeating myself, De Smith started in a bad position and hasn't managed much to improve it, though he does have the players publicly on board and behind him.

the big problem the NFLPA faces is it's coming off what's regarded as one of the biggest wins it enjoyed with the last contract -- a contract so bad it took only a few years for the NFL owners to realize how much they gave up. the challenge for Smith -- or anyone in his position today -- is coming out with any type of "win" in these talks, and deciding where that "win" will come from.

 

way i see it, the NFLPA's is laying its cards on the 18-game schedule, and using that as leverage. "the owners want more regular season games to raise more money, well, what do we get out of that?"

it's not a bad approach. the trouble is, the owners have the leg up on this one. unlike last time, when they were ready to sign anything at the last minute, this time they've had the advantage of three years to prepare for this one. and it certainly appears Goodell has his people in line.

 

jw

Edited February 4, 2011 by john wawrow

[Mr. WEO]

I still don't understand why people are saying the players are going to be the ones calling for a work stoppage. That just isn't the case. The owners are locking them out. The owners are the ones that want the change -- the players just want it to remain the same.

 

It doesn't help that the networks are in bed with the NFL (of course) and refuse to air NFLPA ads like this one out of fear of angering the Owners.

The CBA expires in March. Things, therefore, "cannot remain the same", no matter what the players want.

 

The players are under contract. The League can simply say "play ball" and the players can either play or strike. The owners don't want a lockout-they would be wise to have the players balemd for the work stoppage.

 

my guess is a deal's done by july. there's no pressing interest to get one done at this point. owners are lined up for the long haul (much like the NHL owners were in 2004-05), and the union seems intent on playing its -- as some have pointed out here -- relatively weak hand.

i wrote this a while back here, so sorry for repeating myself, De Smith started in a bad position and hasn't managed much to improve it, though he does have the players publicly on board and behind him.

the big problem the NFLPA faces is it's coming off what's regarded as one of the biggest wins it enjoyed with the last contract -- a contract so bad it took only a few years for the NFL owners to realize how much they gave up. the challenge for Smith -- or anyone in his position today -- is coming out with any type of "win" in these talks, and deciding where that "win" will come from.

 

way i see it, the NFLPA's is laying its cards on the 18-game schedule, and using that as leverage. "the owners want more regular season games to raise more money, well, what do we get out of that?"

it's not a bad approach. the trouble is, the owners have the leg up on this one. unlike last time, when they were ready to sign anything at the last minute, this time they've had the advantage of three years to prepare for this one. and it certainly appears Goodell has his people in line.

 

jw

I think the 18 game schedule is being used by the owners as leverage here. They will concede it for lower player costs (the season is already 20 games long, financially speaking and an extra 2 "real" games will only be meaningful finacnially in the next TV contracts). So, they probably don't really care about 18 games and they know the players don't want 18 games so there really is no bargaining position for the players.

 

I think that the vast majority of players realize that the "big win" in the last CBA didn't bring them, in fact, any more money in their contracts. Now even that deal is gone and they are facing no paychecks next season--even a strike. They should pusjh for a deal--any "pay cut" would actually just mean a drop in the previously scheduled salary caps and would mainly affect future contracts.