Well-Thought-Out CBA Negotiation Article

[Casey D]

This extremely helpful compared to the fact-free opinions that often populate this board.

 

I am curious if you have perspectives on a couple of other issues:

 

1. I really appreciated the factoid about this year's draft being grandfathered in under the the CBA (this point and the contestable question of to what extent very old CBA agreements still hold shows how silly the claims made by some that now that the sides have failed to agree the old CBAs are null and void with no impact- this view is simply wrong based what have seen). I get it that the NFL and NFLPA have agreed to let this one go ahead even without an agreement.

 

However, my sense is that the truly aggrieved party in this trust violation is not the NFLPA and the NFL, but actually is the rookies to be drafted. The limited anti-trust exemption the players and owners operate under is actually a conspiracy which not only sets salary levels of players but actually forces rookies to negotiate with one and only one team. This strikes me as an abridgment of individuals rights to sign personal services contracts with whomever they judge to reach an agreement with in our capitalist society.

 

It obviously would be hard for a rookie job applicant sue his potential employers, but quite frankly all rules are off right now without an agreed upon CBA. Rookies like Quinn are already making noises that they are operating as individuals rather than as sheep. The fact is that if you are a likely top ten draft talent you are going to do fine without regard to whether 31 owners are pissed at you.

 

In addition, it is clear that the NFLPA is already talking to rookies and their agents and depending on what the NFLPA's strategy is on this, grandfathering in the draft is fine but also encouraging or at least co-operating with lawsuits against the draft without the NFLPA fig leaf could work to the players benefit.

 

How do you see this possibility (even if improbable it only takes one person to file a suit).

 

2. The thing I think some folks miss in analyzing this is that they are more wedded to their doctrinal views than to past real life events. They are so wedded to ideas like the traditional employer/employee relationship they are considering this this whole CBA fight in that context only. While past actions do not completely predict future events they are not unreasonable indicators.

 

In the past two CBA negotiations the NFLPA has developed out-of-the box proposals based on their assertion of partnership with the team owners rather than simple employer/employee relationships. They have run with their third way thinking on these negotiations to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat after the replacement player debacle and to basically publicly dictate the terms of the last CBA.

 

My sense is that on this third go round that strategically the NFLPA will be introducing some new strategy not envisioned by the owners whom they have run rings around the last two CBA megotiations.

 

Do you see any new out of the box ways the NFLPA might operate this time around?

 

Thanks

Excellent questions and points. I think the draft is one of the most interesting issues. It is generally thought that a CBA is needed to have a draft. You are correct that exisiting players may make concessions more readily on rookies because they are not rookies anymore, but even high rookie salaries benefit all players to some degree, as they provide something to point at when veterans are FAs. With a CBA, I think the rookies have no case, even if they may be used a bit by the union.

 

Without a union/CBA, whether a draft would be sustained under the antitrust laws is difficult to predict. Certainly allocating new talent around the league to maintain a fair basis to maintain competitive balance would be a procompetitive benefit for the NFL joint venture to maintain a game product that people will want to watch. On the other hand, as you point out, the restraint on rookie compensation is likely very great--imagine no draft and Andrew Luck auctioned off, followed by all the likely top ten picks. How much would the Jerry Jones and Danny Snyders be willing to spend/throw away on each one of these guys? That is what a rookie lawsuit would argue. But also imagine how that process would likely destroy competitive balance. What do you think is the right answer?

 

I think the players have suggested a new model with a true partnership with the owners amd more sharing of risks and rewards. I think the owners have no interest in that--they want control over their property and are not interested in giving it up. But litigation softens peoples views over time, so we shall see.

 

Thanks for the time you took to write this up. It helps the laymen like myself get a better understanding of the legal issues at bar here.

 

The underlined section is what would scare me as an owner. By allowing things to progress to this point and risk losing control of how their league is governed is a huge gamble to take. One that I don't think is worth it for the owners (or fans) and shows just how arrogant and foolish they are for letting things reach this critical point.

 

I for one hope that a deal is struck BEFORE the courts get a chance to interfere in their business.

You have identified the core truism of this dispute from the players' perspective. What you underlined is what the players believe will make the owners retreat and why they decertified and elected to litigate. We shall see if they are correct.

[Mr. WEO]

Once again you avoid answering the question. It's obviously a hypothetical. Which would you prefer?

It's obviously not hypothetical--it's impossible. It's is immediately apparent that neither choice can exist.

 

I would chose to have football this year and that would only come about if a deal is struck between two sides. This can only happen if both sides compromise on their positions.

 

Just a dumb question.

[Beerball]

I for one hope that a deal is struck BEFORE the courts get a chance to interfere in their business.

They go to court in early April & a decision is expected about a week-10 days later. Nothing will happen between now and then (IMO).

 

That decision will be appealed by whatever side loses (IMO).

 

I think that it is while waiting for the appeal that some progress may be made. The 'losing' side in the original case may be compelled to make some concessions and maybe a deal could be struck.

 

I think the chances of an agreement prior to appeal is stronger if the league loses the 4/6 judgement. If the players lose I think we're in for the long haul.

[Mr. WEO]

What happens if they issue an injunction against the lockout? Do games get played if there is still no CBA?

[JohnC]

They go to court in early April & a decision is expected about a week-10 days later. Nothing will happen between now and then (IMO).

 

That decision will be appealed by whatever side loses (IMO).

 

I think that it is while waiting for the appeal that some progress may be made. The 'losing' side in the original case may be compelled to make some concessions and maybe a deal could be struck.

 

I think the chances of an agreement prior to appeal is stronger if the league loses the 4/6 judgement. If the players lose I think we're in for the long haul.

 

Your overall assessment is excellent. It is a scenario that most of us should want.

 

No matter which side you favor the best chance of not having the season in jeopardy or delayed is for the judge to issue an injunction against the lockout. In some respect an injunction also benefits the owners in that it forces both sides to get back to the table, which they both want. The union with their legal maneuvering is currently jockeying to be better positioned in the negotiating. Sooner or later they have to get back on to the dance floor.

 

The way to look at the issue isn't who is going to win or lose in the negotiation. Both parties are inextricably linked. (That dependency in itself bothers a lot of people. WEO my friend you are in that category.) Nothing gets done withut concessions from both sides. I favor the players more in this dispute. But I don't want them to get too much of an upper hand. Because if they do they are prone to over-reach and harden the other side. The other side of the coin is that I don't want the owners to get too strong of a position either because if they feel they are in a position of strength they are more prone to trying to impose their will. If that happens then there is going to be a protracted battle.

 

If the negotiations bog down into an issue of ideology of who has more authority instead of the back and forth of making a deal then that is an ominous sign for a long-term conflict.

 

From what I have read on this maddening dispute, as it stands, there is a framework for a deal to get done. When the parties get back together they should be able to get a signed deal done.

Edited March 24, 2011 by JohnC

[CosmicBills]

i want football in 2011, but not at the expense of the long-term health of the league.

And that is the crux of it all, and was the point of the hypothetical question.

 

How can anyone say that the long term health of the league is in jeopardy? Even with the most recent CBA the league (both owners and players) were making record profits, the game itself has never been more popular, we're coming off of one of the best Super Bowls in recent years and parity flourishes. The league has never been more popular, it's never generated higher ratings or higher revenues. It is the most profitable sector of the entertainment business in the United States. By a long shot.

 

The players aren't asking for more. They are just asking to carry on with business as usual. The owners were the ones who decided, despite how well the league is doing, that things needed to change. But they refuse to say why. As fans, I think we deserve to know.

 

If there was a danger to the long term health of the league, the onus is on the owners to prove it. They refuse to even try. So everyone else is left filling in the blanks as to why they would force a work stoppage at this juncture. If it's not for the betterment of the league, then could it be for the betterment of themselves as individual owners? It sure seems that way.

 

And as fans, that's a sh*&%y pill to swallow. That means we won't get a season in '11 because the Owners simply want more money.

 

I know that your concerns are more geared towards smaller market teams being able to compete in the NFL versus letting the big market teams set up a New York Yankee/Boston RedSox type situation. But I don't even think the owners (or the players) are really arguing about that. Hell, there are only 2 owners that seem to worry about it at all (Ralph and Brown).

 

If the players had forced a work stoppage by striking for more money at this point in time, everyone, myself included, would be up in arms and calling them selfish greedy SOBs. But they aren't asking for more. The owners are. And they're willing to gamble on the long term health of the league -- the very issue you're concerned about -- in order to get more money for themselves. It has nothing to do with the long term success of the league in their minds, only their own individual bottom line.

 

Think about that.

 

The league is generating record numbers despite a massive recession. The league is hugely popular and the games over all have never been more competitive or fun for the fans. The owners are willing to risk all of that, willing to sacrifice a season, in order to get more money for their own pockets. A prolonged lockout WILL have a negative effect on the league. Fans will leave, revenue will drop, and that could cost smaller market teams more in the long run than raising the salary cap.

 

So again, the question is, why now? Why did the owners force the issue at this point in time? Why risk it when things have never been better?

 

Greed.

 

But people think, "hey, that's okay, that's their right to do so as owners". But it's not okay for the players to fight back against this? They didn't start the fight, but people expect them to roll over and take it because "they're owners"? That's such utter and exquisite bull ****. What would you do if your boss came to you and told you that you have to take a massive pay cut because he fears for the long term health of his business even though you KNOW for a fact that he's lying? You'd be pissed off. You'd fight. You'd quit. You'd do anything and everything in your power as an employee to get what you deserve. There isn't a person on this board that would do anything but -- even WEO. But because these guys are rich athletes, somehow the same rules don't apply to them.

 

And that is called hypocrisy.

 

There's right and there's wrong. It doesn't matter how much or how little money someone makes. When someone tries to take advantage of you, it's not only your right to fight back -- it's your duty. Otherwise, you'll be nothing more than a doormat your entire life.

[Mr. WEO]

Your overall assessment is excellent. It is a scenario that most of us should want.

 

 

The way to look at the issue isn't who is going to win or lose in the negotiation. Both parties are inextricably linked. (That dependency in itself bothers a lot of people. WEO my friend you are in that category.) Nothing gets done withut concessions from both sides.

I believe I have repeated this several times now, Robin Hood.

 

 

 

 

But people think, "hey, that's okay, that's their right to do so as owners". But it's not okay for the players to fight back against this? They didn't start the fight, but people expect them to roll over and take it because "they're owners"? That's such utter and exquisite bull ****. What would you do if your boss came to you and told you that you have to take a massive pay cut because he fears for the long term health of his business even though you KNOW for a fact that he's lying? You'd be pissed off. You'd fight. You'd quit. You'd do anything and everything in your power as an employee to get what you deserve. There isn't a person on this board that would do anything but -- even WEO. But because these guys are rich athletes, somehow the same rules don't apply to them.

 

And that is called hypocrisy.

 

There's right and there's wrong. It doesn't matter how much or how little money someone makes. When someone tries to take advantage of you, it's not only your right to fight back -- it's your duty. Otherwise, you'll be nothing more than a doormat your entire life.

You have no real concept of what the last CBA was about, nor do you understand what has been offered. You really need to read up before commenting.

 

Look, the owners opted out of the CBA at the time the economy was beginning it's slide. To them, being on the hook (potentially) for 59.5% of all revenue, no matter what was happenong to their individual team business, was too risky. They opted out. Simple.

 

At no time, ever, did the owners demand or even suggest that current players take a "pay cut" (and just to make it clear so you don't fudge your analogy--pay cut means "starting tomorrow, you will make less money"). All players are under contract--those contracts are not to be changed. This is all about the cap limit available for future contracts being stricly pegged to total revenues or not. The players did not get "a raise" under the last CBA. Only if their contract was signed or renewed during this period did they possibly end up with more money.

 

If my boss told me I was going to cut my pay, my choices are accept or quit. He is the company owner, not me.

 

Check out the crazy money the owners are offering as the cap by 2014 (it's exactly the same number that the union was asking for). You know nothing if you claim they are taking a "pay cut".

Edited March 24, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[CosmicBills]

I believe I have repeated this several times now, Robin Hood.

 

At no time, ever, did the owners demand or even suggest that current players take a "pay cut" (and just to make it clear so you don't fudge your analogy--pay cut means "starting tomorrow, you will make less money"). All players are under contract--those contracts are not to be changed. This is all about the cap limit available for future contracts being stricly pegged to total revenues or not.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but taking an extra 1 Billion out of the revenue pool is a pay cut. Whether the effects of it are felt immediately or four years from now when current players are renegotiating their deals, it's a cut.

 

But I see your point. It's okay for the owners to make moves when they're concerned about the future but not players. Rock solid logic there. Hard to argue.

 

If my boss told me I was going to cut my pay, my choices are accept or quit. He is the company owner, not me.

 

If that's how you really feel, cool. We're different people. I was born with a backbone, you apparently weren't. It's all good in the hood!

[JohnC]

I believe I have repeated this several times now, Robin Hood.

 

Your notion of Robin Hood is the very extraordinary rich taking from the rich.

 

 

 

Look, the owners opted out of the CBA at the time the economy was beginning it's slide. To them, being on the hook (potentially) for 59.5% of all revenue, no matter what was happenong to their individual team business, was too risky. They opted out. Simple.

 

At no time, ever, did the owners demand or even suggest that current players take a "pay cut" (and just to make it clear so you don't fudge your analogy--pay cut means "starting tomorrow, you will make less money"). All players are under contract--those contracts are not to be changed. This is all about the cap limit available for future contracts being stricly pegged to total revenues or not. The players did not get "a raise" under the last CBA. Only if their contract was signed or renewed during this period did they possibly end up with more money.

 

Check out the crazy money the owners are offering as the cap by 2014 (it's exactly the same number that the union was asking for). You know nothing if you claim they are taking a "pay cut".

 

What the owners are trying to do is have the cap at a fixed amount instead of resorting to the percentage of revenue model. In that way if the revenues go up the owners get a greater share of the increase. On the other hand if the revenue goes down the players make out under the owners more fixed cost approach.

 

That is not going to happen. The players' side of this dispute is not going to be hustled no matter how much you want that to happen. The structure of the deal is as important as the amount of the deal.

 

The owners are projecting increases in revenue not decreases in revenue. They want a larger share of the increases to go to them instead of being shared at the curent agreed rate.

Edited March 24, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

 

You can call it whatever you want, but taking an extra 1 Billion out of the revenue pool is a pay cut. Whether the effects of it are felt immediately or four years from now when current players are renegotiating their deals, it's a cut.

 

But I see your point. It's okay for the owners to make moves when they're concerned about the future but not players. Rock solid logic there. Hard to argue.

If that's how you really feel, cool. We're different people. I was born with a backbone, you apparently weren't. It's all good in the hood!

Again, and slower, 4 years from now the amount already offered by the owners is the same as that requested by the union, so you are wrong again. Also, the initial offer by the owners was an extra billion. They then successively cut it to 700 mil, 500 and finally 325 mil. The union wasn't interested. They are only interested in profit sharing, not risk sharing.

 

We are obviously very different people. You need a better grasp of this stuff.

 

 

Your notion of Robin Hood is the very extraordinary rich taking from the rich.

 

 

 

 

 

What the owners are trying to do is have the cap at a fixed amount instead of resorting to the percentage of revenue model. In that way if the revenues go up the owners get a greater share of the increase. On the other hand if the revenue goes down the players make out under the owners more fixed cost approach.

 

That is not going to happen. The players' side of this dispute is not going to be hustled no matter how much you want that to happen. The structure of the deal is as important as the amount of the deal.

 

The owners are projecting increases in revenue not decreases in revenue. They want a larger share of the increases to go to them instead of being shared at the curent agreed rate.

John, the players are not being hustled. They have forced major concessions at from the owners before walking away and decertifying hours before the lockout. Between Bird?Magic and MJ, no one thought the NBA would ever stop printing money. Now that league is headed towards NHL type irrelevancy. The owners have a rgith to protect their investment. The players have made no financial investment in the team they play for. Why should the owners concede to employees demands for a piece of the profits. That's crazy.

[JohnC]

 

John, the players are not being hustled. They have forced major concessions at from the owners before walking away and decertifying hours before the lockout. Between Bird?Magic and MJ, no one thought the NBA would ever stop printing money. Now that league is headed towards NHL type irrelevancy. The owners have a rgith to protect their investment. The players have made no financial investment in the team they play for. Why should the owners concede to employees demands for a piece of the profits. That's crazy.

 

The system you are suggesting that is choking the insatiable owners has greatly enriched them beyond imagination, even in the worst of times. If you don't believe me then just ask Ralph.

 

I'll say to you what I have said before I agreed with the hockey owners' stragrgy of shutting down the system to get a more workable business model. I'll say to you what I have said before I will agree with the NBA owners if they shut down the system to get a more workable business model. I'll say to you what I have said before the NFL situation is dramatically different from the other professional leagues. Both sides of the table have done exceptionally well under the current system. Until the owners can demonstrate a valid need to redo the calculation in a major way they have no legitimate case for their position.

 

If the owners want they can take their case to the judge and then open their gilded books to show how they have been unfairly treated by the players. I hope the owners don't get their feelings hurt when the judge uncontrollably laughs when he/she sees the numbers.

[Ramius]

 

 

 

You can call it whatever you want, but taking an extra 1 Billion out of the revenue pool is a pay cut. Whether the effects of it are felt immediately or four years from now when current players are renegotiating their deals, it's a cut.

 

But I see your point. It's okay for the owners to make moves when they're concerned about the future but not players. Rock solid logic there. Hard to argue.

 

 

 

If that's how you really feel, cool. We're different people. I was born with a backbone, you apparently weren't. It's all good in the hood!

 

Cutting the rate of increase of salaries != a paycut. No player is being asked for a paycut. They are being asked for a smaller yearly increase, which is a far cry from a pay cut.

 

If you make $100 and are asked to continue working for $90, that's a paycut. If you work for $100 with a yearly increase of 10%, and your boss wants to change it so you only get a 5% increase, that isn't a paycut. The situation here is the latter, not the former.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Ramius

[CosmicBills]

(1)Again, and slower, 4 years from now the amount already offered by the owners is the same as that requested by the union, so you are wrong again.

 

Also, the initial offer by the owners was an extra billion. They then successively cut it to 700 mil, 500 and finally 325 mil.

 

(2)The union wasn't interested. They are only interested in profit sharing, not risk sharing.

 

(1) First, you're choosing to believe the NFL's side of the argument. The side that so far has misled and been dishonest about pretty much every element of this leading up to and throughout the negotiations. Second, even if the numbers they say they offered are true, you're still incorrect because those numbers are fixed. The players want to keep the revenue sharing they fought for and won.

 

Again, it's just like the last strike in Hollywood. The studios say "Hey, we'll guarantee you X million from internet revenues, why do you need 5% of the revenues?" Well, because 5% of x might be millions more. It's slight of hand. The owners are trying to pull a fast one. You cannot put a finite number and say that equals the same thing they'd get from revenue sharing without knowing what the total revenues are. But you know that.

 

(2) Forget the argument for the time being that less than half the owners actually took any risks when it came to buying into the league. Forget the fact that owning an NFL team poses as close to zero risk as you can find in business. And just re-read what you wrote. Revenue sharing is actually the best way to share financial risk. If the league loses money, the players will take less money. If it makes money they make more money.

 

To think revenue sharing is anything OTHER than sharing the financial risk is not being honest. Or not understanding simple vocabulary.

 

But in order to have revenue sharing and share financial risk, the books need to be opened.

 

So, try again.

 

John, the players are not being hustled. They have forced major concessions at from the owners before walking away and decertifying hours before the lockout. Between Bird?Magic and MJ, no one thought the NBA would ever stop printing money. Now that league is headed towards NHL type irrelevancy. The owners have a rgith to protect their investment. The players have made no financial investment in the team they play for. Why should the owners concede to employees demands for a piece of the profits. That's crazy.

There's a difference between profit and revenue. Also, the reason the NBA stopped printing money was because there was a work stoppage. One that soured the fans. While in that case it was the players who went on strike, it should serve as a warning bell for the owners.

 

They should see what happened in the NBA and MLB -- two sports that lost tremendous amounts of popularity and money when they had prolonged strikes despite being insanely popular prior to that.

 

The owners are risking the same fate for their league for no reason. That's why they're being reckless. They think the league is untouchable.

 

It ain't.

[Mr. WEO]

(1) First, you're choosing to believe the NFL's side of the argument. The side that so far has misled and been dishonest about pretty much every element of this leading up to and throughout the negotiations. Second, even if the numbers they say they offered are true, you're still incorrect because those numbers are fixed. The players want to keep the revenue sharing they fought for and won.

 

Again, it's just like the last strike in Hollywood. The studios say "Hey, we'll guarantee you X million from internet revenues, why do you need 5% of the revenues?" Well, because 5% of x might be millions more. It's slight of hand. The owners are trying to pull a fast one. You cannot put a finite number and say that equals the same thing they'd get from revenue sharing without knowing what the total revenues are. But you know that.

 

(2) Forget the argument for the time being that less than half the owners actually took any risks when it came to buying into the league. Forget the fact that owning an NFL team poses as close to zero risk as you can find in business. And just re-read what you wrote. Revenue sharing is actually the best way to share financial risk. If the league loses money, the players will take less money. If it makes money they make more money.

 

To think revenue sharing is anything OTHER than sharing the financial risk is not being honest. Or not understanding simple vocabulary.

 

But in order to have revenue sharing and share financial risk, the books need to be opened.

 

So, try again.

 

 

There's a difference between profit and revenue. Also, the reason the NBA stopped printing money was because there was a work stoppage. One that soured the fans. While in that case it was the players who went on strike, it should serve as a warning bell for the owners.

 

They should see what happened in the NBA and MLB -- two sports that lost tremendous amounts of popularity and money when they had prolonged strikes despite being insanely popular prior to that.

 

The owners are risking the same fate for their league for no reason. That's why they're being reckless. They think the league is untouchable.

 

It ain't.

I'm basing my comments on all reports of the owners' final offer, which was released to the press. You can imagine anything you want to make your argument right in your mind.

 

"Losing money" for an owner is NOT the same as "making less money" for a player. If a company loses money, it spent more than it made. If you shared risk with your boss, if the company lost money , you would have to give back money you made to help cover the loses.

 

No where, anywhere at any time has anyone suggested the players will make less money than they currently are making. You are simply making that up. They are guaranteed to make more money with a rising cap every year--even if their team is losing money (as the Raiders did in 2009). They cannot lose money under any proposal by the owners to this point--stop repeating this ridiculous fallacy. The players are exposed to no financial risk.

 

You go on and on about the books--how the players can't be assured they are getting their share "without knowing what the total revenues are"--yet after they were told they would be getting "59.5%" of all league revenues in 2006, did they even bother to look at the books? No they didn't. Why are they scraming about the books now? It's all a game they are playing--they were interested in suing the league. They went through the sham of negotiating--watching the owner put forth offer after offer (conceding more and more)--and then the union filed the prepared decertification papers while the owners were still sitting at the table. The union's counter offer was only "show us the books".

 

Basketball faded away because there are no icons left. The average American sports fan doesn't care about a league that has Kobe, LeBron....and that's really about it. Crappy teams filled with rosters of nobodies. Expansion rendered the NHL irrelevant years ago--America doesn't care when teams from Texas or Carolina win the Cup. MLB is making more revenue than ever in it's history. The NFL stopped playing twice due to strikes--it has come back stronger than ever despite this. No one is walking away from football.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[CosmicBills]

 

Basketball faded away because there are no icons left. The average American sports fan doesn't care about a league that has Kobe, LeBron....and that's really about it. Crappy teams filled with rosters of nobodies.

Really? Do you want to rethink that statement?

[Mr. WEO]

Really? Do you want to rethink that statement?

Excepting the Knicks, maybe. Crappy team filled with wildly overpaid nobodies, Amare and Melo.

 

Not gonna answer my simple question, I see.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[CosmicBills]

Excepting the Knicks, maybe. Crappy team filled with wildly overpaid nobodies, Amare and Melo.

 

Not gonna answer my simple question, I see.

What question? I must have missed it, sorry.

 

But are you really saying that the reason why the NBA declined post Jordan was because there were no good players? No icons? The NBA is in serious trouble and probably need to contract two teams to bounce back ... And you think the reason it finds itself in peril is because teams are filled with nobodies? You really, honestly believe that even plays a part in it?

[Orton's Arm]

The players aren't asking the owners to open their personal books because they think the owners are being frivolous with their money. They want the franchise's books opened because they agreed to REVENUE sharing in the CBA. Your example is not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not in the same league.

 

But you knew that. You're better than that. You're just being silly.

 

 

They're not just employees. That's the essence of the entire debate.

 

 

No question ... the players had time to prepare for this. Everyone knew a lockout was looming.

 

I wonder, and if someone with a legal background knows the answer to this please chime in, COULD the NFLPA have set up a group insurance plan knowing that they were going to dissolve to force litigation? Even if they had set up a plan, I'm not sure it would still be allowed to exist once they dissolved.

 

I know that many say (and they're right) that the NFLPA hasn't really dissolved at all and it's a ploy -- but it'd be hard for the players to argue otherwise if they had an active health plan in place through the PA. But maybe I'm wrong.

I was not "just being silly." I have not seen anyone from the players' union claim that the owners are being dishonest about the revenues they're taking in. I haven't even seen this raised as a possibility. The reason the players' union demanded the NFL's financial statements was to try to make the owners prove they "need" the extra money. But the "prove you need it concept" is a two way street. If the players are demanding that the owners prove they need the money, why shouldn't the owners demand the same of the players?

 

As for the question of whether the players are employees or partners--a good analogy is an auction for something that's rare and valuable. In such an auction setting the tendency is for the winning bid to be too high. For example, suppose drilling rights to a specific oil deposit are being sold. Company A thinks those rights are worth $25 million, B thinks they're worth $50 million, and so on. Ultimately company D wins the auction with its bid of $100 million. There's a chance D was right about how much those rights were worth. But the opinions of A - C might have been correct too. Some of the time the auction price will be the right one (equates to D being correct). But most of the time it will be too high (equates to A, B, or C being correct).

 

Another reason why auctions can produce higher prices than they should can be understood by the following example. An expert (I forget his name) delivered talks to Wall Street brokers, MBA students, and other people like that. Each time he gave a talk he'd auction off a $100 bill. If your bid is the highest, you pay the amount of the bid and get the $100. If your bid is the second-highest, you pay the amount of the bid but get nothing.

 

The auction would typically begin with someone offering $5 or $10 for the $100 bill. That's obviously a great deal. In fact it's a little too obvious, because someone else will generally place a higher bid. So now your $10 bid is being trumped by someone else's $15 bid. You don't want to be in second--obviously--so you bid $20 on the theory that it's better to pay $20 and get $100 than to pay $10 and get nothing. Now the other guy is in second, and his thought process is going to be the same as yours just was. The two of you (or three or four of you, potentially) are going to bounce back and forth, with the price of that $100 bill going progressively higher. Now consider what happens when the price starts getting close to $100. One of you bids $90. The guy in second can pay $85 and get nothing, or he can pay $95 and get the $100. Assuming the second guy bids the $95, the first guy can either bid $100 to try to win the auction, or he can concede and pay $90 for nothing. This thought process pushes the price of that $100 bill up past $100, and is why they have sometimes sold for $400 or $500. Not once has this kind of auction produced a final sale price of equal to or below $100. Not once!

 

Now consider and NFL owner who notices his team is 4-12, but that most of his team's losses were by 7 points or less. The owner figures that by spending a little more money on a few key additions, he can improve his team's record to 9-7 or better. The problem is that each time this owner gains talent (relative to the league as a whole) some other team loses talent relative to the league. Every time this owner's team wins an additional game, some other team must incur an additional loss. In order for this owner's team to move forward, some other team or combination of teams must be pushed back. The teams being pushed back will (presumably) want to move themselves forward again. (With the exception of teams that are far more interested in the bottom line than in winning games.) In practice, this means that teams will get into a bidding war for players much like the above-described bidding war for that $100 bill. Coming in "second" in the bidding war for players might mean that you have a 4-12 roster that's a few players away from 9-7. Or it might mean that you have an 8-8 roster that's a few players away from a deep run in the playoffs. For a really good team, "second" might mean losing in the conference championship game, or even being beaten in the Super Bowl. There's always an incentive to add just a little bit more talent to your team, bid just a little higher for a few extra players. That way you come in "first" (achieving the goal you'd set for your team) not "second" (failing to achieve the goal but spending almost as much as if you'd achieved it).

 

Each NFL team constantly competes with all the others in an auction-like event for the talents of the players. To prevent the prices (player salaries) from getting out of hand (as can easily happen in an auction setting), it was decided to implement a salary cap. The fact this cap is based on league revenues (as opposed to some arbitrary number) does not therefore make the players "partners" with the owners. Still less does it make them "investors" in the league! The players offer a service which the owners wish to purchase. That's a standard employer/employee relationship, not a business partnership.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[Orton's Arm]

i want football in 2011, but not at the expense of the long-term health of the league. If missing a season means a better NFL when we come back in 2012, so be it. It sucked missing the NHL for a season, but the league was much better off when they came back afterwards. That was/is much better than caving to the outrageous demands of a bunch of guys who won't be around in 5 years, and watching the competitive balance of the league crumble.

+1

[Offside Number 76]

PR spin control. The main issue is money. Always has been. Always will be. And the owners decided to create a system where they pay their employees a percentage of the total revenue. When they did that they created a partnership. But they expect the players to take their word on what that total number actually is. On trust alone. Now, there isn't a business in the world that would agree to sign a new deal based on this principle without seeing the books. The fact that the NFL is insisting that they met the players' finical demands is a bold faced lie since the desired number is a percentage of a number the owners refuse to acknlowdge.

 

If the owners didn't have anything to hide they would show the books. If the leave was really not making record profits and generating record revenues, they'd show their books because it would take whatever leverage the players have away.

 

The 18 game schedule and rookie cap are side shows. It's about the money.

 

 

1) No, they did not create a partnership. If they had, the players would have every right to see the books. But they didn't.

 

2) The players are employees; as others have said, the owners' financial affairs are none of their business.

 

But exactly what would be the anti-trust law violations???

 

The NFL does not involve themselves in individual contract negotiations ... nor do they involve themself in contract length ... or arbitrarily decide who can go where. The individual teams have individual contracts with individual players, contract size, contract length, and contract provisions are between the player and team.

 

The league rules only dictate restrictions on the teams (such as roster size, drafting order, waiver wire order, and salary cap) to allow for a far playing field.

 

I really don't understand what the class action suit can be suing for.

 

 

Maybe I'm not asking my question clearly .... so I'll try again;

 

Drew Brees will be one of the names on the class action suit right?

Drew has a contract with the Saints (not the league)right?

Drews contract is based on dollars per year and NOT on a percentage of the Saints (or the leagues) profits right?

He can either honor the contract and get paid, or sit out and not get paid right?

 

Whats his beef? what fault does he need corrected?

 

I understood the ant-trust angle when the players were fighting for free angency ... but what does it have to do with "I want more money"?

 

(by the way I don't mean to be bashing Drew Brees .... I'm just using his name as an example)

 

The NFL dictates the terms and conditions of employment. At the early stage of a player's career, it's a take-it-or-leave it proposition because generally, a player must play for the team that drafted him or not play pro football at all. (Very few players can Elway themselves to a new team.) Later, the NFL still dictates just about every non-salary term of a player's contract. Because there is no real competition, the players are invoking the antitrust laws. This doesn't mean that I see any merit to their suit, btw.