Get ready for a bruising CBA battle

[GG]

NFLPA is taking its message to the players.

 

As part of his effort to make the players conversant in the issues, Mr. Smith is stressing their value to their industry. Considering no one in the world can do their jobs as well as they can, that value is fairly high.

 

So, each time his questions meet blank stares—as they did at team meetings this spring—he follows up with basic lessons in the business of football.

 

Wearing his inside-the-Beltway pin-striped suit, he explains the basics of antitrust law, describing how The Home Depot and Lowe’s can’t get together and decide the price of a hammer, but NFL teams can jointly decide how much to sell the television rights for. He mentions that the NFL spent millions lobbying Washington legislators last year.

 

He explains how NFL teams secured billions in public subsidies for their stadiums because they promised the projects would produce jobs and their games would produce tax revenues. Then he argues that if the owners ultimately lock the players out and prevent the 100,000 people who work in those stadiums from doing their jobs, then they’ve gone back on their deal, and people need to know about it.

 

“This is how we need to start talking about our business,” he tells the players during the meeting with the Seahawks.

 

NFL officials say the league is not going back on any promises. Owners are simply focused on fixing a financial system they claim has been broken since 2006, when they agreed to boost the players’ share of total revenues from 57% to 60%.

 

I'll be shocked if there isn't a lockout or a strike when the CBA expires. My guess is that the players will draw a line on guaranteed contracts in return for a rookie scale. I don't see the owners going for it, and will demand a far lower revenue share percentage.

 

To me, the issue from a players' perspective will boil to the stars vs jags. If the players get their demands for guaranteed contracts, one of two things will happen, jags' salaries will go down due to the huge guarantees paid out to the stars, or the stars' contracts will go down because of the total dollars that will need to be allocated to the jags' guarantees. I doubt that DeMaurice Smith is educating the players on that reality.

[silvermike]

I'm amazed the NFLPA hasn't made a bigger stink about not having guaranteed contracts, considering the NHL, NBA, and MLB all have them. Still, though it seems like the league is the side looking for concessions here, not the players: they want to scale back the raise the players got in the last CBA (from 57% to 60% of total revenue).

 

Maybe they'll find some compromise on guaranteed contracts - rather then getting cut and earning $0 of remaining salary, players will have to be bought out for 25% or something.

[Delete This Account]

NFLPA is taking its message to the players.

 

 

 

I'll be shocked if there isn't a lockout or a strike when the CBA expires. My guess is that the players will draw a line on guaranteed contracts in return for a rookie scale. I don't see the owners going for it, and will demand a far lower revenue share percentage.

 

To me, the issue from a players' perspective will boil to the stars vs jags. If the players get their demands for guaranteed contracts, one of two things will happen, jags' salaries will go down due to the huge guarantees paid out to the stars, or the stars' contracts will go down because of the total dollars that will need to be allocated to the jags' guarantees. I doubt that DeMaurice Smith is educating the players on that reality.

GG:

not a bad analysis, however, don't underestimate DeMaurice Smith. though he has little football background, he's a pitbull-type lawyer and has already rocked the boat at the NFLPA offices by shaking up the old-guard bargaining committee and bringing his own people in -- those he can count on to get his views across.

Smith also took the smart route by visiting with players with all 32 teams in May, and assessing the players' concerns, their needs and thoughts moving forward.

 

i see his reign as a departure from the Gene Upshaw my way or the highway days. an indication of that is Smith ending the appeal on the EA Sports lawsuit and freeing up the money to the retired players. that was a key move as he, unlike Upshaw, now has earned some cache with the retired players, and could use their influence to help out in CBA talks.

 

the one thing that's undetermined -- and one issue i think the talks will hinge on -- is how he and Roger Goodell get along and whether they can establish a relationship of respect. Smith, so far, has also said the right things in an attempt to bring the fans on board by noting in these tough economic times this isn't just about the players, but also about the people who work in secondary NFL service industries, who would be affected by a potential lockout, which Smith of course says, no one wants.

 

Smith, i also believe, understands that the union has leverage because it's the NFL owners who realize they negotiated a poor deal. and you're right, GG, i think the quid pro quo will be guaranteed contracts for rookie salary cap. the question is whether the NFL can get some givebacks on the salary percentage by offering an expanded schedule and the potential for all to make more money.

 

jw

[KRC]

i see his reign as a departure from the Gene Upshaw my way or the highway days. an indication of that is Smith ending the appeal on the EA Sports lawsuit and freeing up the money to the retired players. that was a key move as he, unlike Upshaw, now has earned some cache with the retired players, and could use their influence to help out in CBA talks.

 

Smith is definitely off to a good start with the retired players, but I think that he needs to do more before they will get on board with him. There was a lot of bad blood with Upshaw and Smith is going to need to do more to earn back the good will. Regardless, I agree with your assessment that they need the influence of the retired players in the upcoming negotiations. The last thing Smith needs is to fight a war on two fronts.

[GG]

GG:

not a bad analysis, however, don't underestimate DeMaurice Smith. though he has little football background, he's a pitbull-type lawyer and has already rocked the boat at the NFLPA offices by shaking up the old-guard bargaining committee and bringing his own people in -- those he can count on to get his views across.

Smith also took the smart route by visiting with players with all 32 teams in May, and assessing the players' concerns, their needs and thoughts moving forward.

 

i see his reign as a departure from the Gene Upshaw my way or the highway days. an indication of that is Smith ending the appeal on the EA Sports lawsuit and freeing up the money to the retired players. that was a key move as he, unlike Upshaw, now has earned some cache with the retired players, and could use their influence to help out in CBA talks.

 

the one thing that's undetermined -- and one issue i think the talks will hinge on -- is how he and Roger Goodell get along and whether they can establish a relationship of respect. Smith, so far, has also said the right things in an attempt to bring the fans on board by noting in these tough economic times this isn't just about the players, but also about the people who work in secondary NFL service industries, who would be affected by a potential lockout, which Smith of course says, no one wants.

 

Smith, i also believe, understands that the union has leverage because it's the NFL owners who realize they negotiated a poor deal. and you're right, GG, i think the quid pro quo will be guaranteed contracts for rookie salary cap. the question is whether the NFL can get some givebacks on the salary percentage by offering an expanded schedule and the potential for all to make more money.

 

jw

 

Yup, the issue is actually very elementary. There is basically a fixed amount of revenues coming in, and the biggest battle will be on the revenue sharing percentage. Guaranteed contracts add the wrinkle in the upcoming debate - ie how you allocate current year's revenue sharing for previous years' contracts, especially for players who have been cut? I imagine that teams will be credited for salaries that are picked up by other clubs, but the equation gets trickier to account for players who no longer play.

 

Would be interested in your thoughts about this negotiating tactic?

Mr. Houshmandzadeh raises his hand and asks if it’s OK to start talking about the public funding for the stadiums and the anti-trust exemptions when sportswriters interview him in the locker room. Mr. Smith tells him he should, and if writers don’t publish his sentiments he shouldn’t talk to them anymore.

[Delete This Account]

Smith is definitely off to a good start with the retired players, but I think that he needs to do more before they will get on board with him. There was a lot of bad blood with Upshaw and Smith is going to need to do more to earn back the good will. Regardless, I agree with your assessment that they need the influence of the retired players in the upcoming negotiations. The last thing Smith needs is to fight a war on two fronts.

true, there are numerous retired players who are still skeptical. Joe D, for one. by reaching the deal, though, Smith at least was able to offer an olive branch rather than a kick in the face. the move also de-emphasized the role union attorney's Jeffrey Kessler and Richard Berthelsen have had. both were held in very low regard by the retired players, and both were intent on proceeding with the lawsuit as Upshaw would've wanted.

 

Smith has at the very least gained some credibility, and Herb Adderley's comments commending Smith were a clear sign that a thaw might be in the making.

 

Smith, like Troy Vincent and David Cornwell (two of the three people he ran against for the Executive Director job), all stressed that resolving the dispute with retired players was just as important as the CBA talks. as Adderley's lawyer put it, Smith has begun putting his money where his mouth is.

 

jw

[VOR]

Smith, i also believe, understands that the union has leverage because it's the NFL owners who realize they negotiated a poor deal. and you're right, GG, i think the quid pro quo will be guaranteed contracts for rookie salary cap. the question is whether the NFL can get some givebacks on the salary percentage by offering an expanded schedule and the potential for all to make more money.

A "poor deal?" Come now! It was an awesome deal because hey, it preserved labor peace (for a few years, while costing the owners hundreds of millions). I mean, 30 of 32 owners voted for it!

[Delete This Account]

Yup, the issue is actually very elementary. There is basically a fixed amount of revenues coming in, and the biggest battle will be on the revenue sharing percentage. Guaranteed contracts add the wrinkle in the upcoming debate - ie how you allocate current year's revenue sharing for previous years' contracts, especially for players who have been cut? I imagine that teams will be credited for salaries that are picked up by other clubs, but the equation gets trickier to account for players who no longer play.

 

Would be interested in your thoughts about this negotiating tactic?

personally, i think it's the wrong play to draw the media into this, because once we reporters start taking sides (and we'll take sides if players stop talking to us), then the union loses its momentum.

that's not to say that i won't quote a player about stadium funding, etc. i'm sure that will be one of the union's more significant "talking points" going forward. yet i don't want the topic of stadium funding to come up in an interview that has nothing to do with the CBA.

 

jw

[Delete This Account]

A "poor deal?" Come now! It was an awesome deal because hey, it preserved labor peace (for a few years, while costing the owners hundreds of millions). I mean, 30 of 32 owners voted for it!

sorry, i think there would be consensus among the owners today to describe it as not a poor deal but "a terrible deal."

oh, that Ralph. ...

 

jw

[GG]

personally, i think it's the wrong play to draw the media into this, because once we reporters start taking sides (and we'll take sides if players stop talking to us), then the union loses its momentum.

that's not to say that i won't quote a player about stadium funding, etc. i'm sure that will be one of the union's more significant "talking points" going forward. yet i don't want the topic of stadium funding to come up in an interview that has nothing to do with the CBA.

 

jw

 

Could be a treacherous path for the NFLPA, as most of the recent stadium funding has come from the owners and the NFL's G3 fund that raised the league's debt.

[VOR]

sorry, i think there would be consensus among the owners today to describe it as not a poor deal but "a terrible deal."

oh, that Ralph. ...

Well now, he's a greedy, senile old coot and "didn't understand it." And he only voted it down because it would have cost him money. Whereas the other owners were only out to prevent a work stoppage. Or something stupid like that.

[Delete This Account]

Could be a treacherous path for the NFLPA, as most of the recent stadium funding has come from the owners and the NFL's G3 fund that raised the league's debt.

don't know if they'll push on it too far. i think this is more of a cosmetic argument that works to the NFLPA's advantage in two ways: it's a good topic the union can use to stir up the troops and get them on board, and also a good thrust at the owners and their claim they're losing money. "losing money? how can that be when you got these government incentives, etc., benefits, which we don't see a penny of."

 

i don't see this as a make-or-break argument, just part of the back-and-forth.

 

what's more intriguing, and one that scares the NFL, is Smith's Beltway connections, particularly his work with Pres. Obama. if the union ever goes to decertify again, that brings in the specter of anti-trust laws being introduced against the NFL ... and the owners certainly don't want that.

again, these are some of the tools in the union's toolbox. not sure how willing they are to use them, but they're there.

 

jw

[Lori]

NFLPA is taking its message to the players.

 

 

 

I'll be shocked if there isn't a lockout or a strike when the CBA expires. My guess is that the players will draw a line on guaranteed contracts in return for a rookie scale. I don't see the owners going for it, and will demand a far lower revenue share percentage.

 

To me, the issue from a players' perspective will boil to the stars vs jags. If the players get their demands for guaranteed contracts, one of two things will happen, jags' salaries will go down due to the huge guarantees paid out to the stars, or the stars' contracts will go down because of the total dollars that will need to be allocated to the jags' guarantees. I doubt that DeMaurice Smith is educating the players on that reality.

Good stuff. Agree with both you and John, a rookie cap is an absolute necessity -- but perhaps tougher to convince the star players of that fact than one might think, because they can use those rooks' inflated contracts as ammo when their own deals come due.

 

And we already have some history of the mid-level players, much less the guys at the bottom of the roster, getting squeezed when free agency and the salary cap first hit the league. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that help push guys like Kenneth Davis and Darryl Talley out of Buffalo?

 

Re: Smith, I recently talked with -- well, typed at -- Jeff Nixon regarding the settlement on the licensing deal. He thinks DMS is saying the right things, but reminded me of Chuck Knox's quote, "Actions speak louder than words." Can't disagree. The settlement was an easy call to make (and one Upshaw should never have fought in the first place, IMO), but the CBA negotiations are where Smith's going to have to earn his salary.

[Delete This Account]

The settlement was an easy call to make (and one Upshaw should never have fought in the first place, IMO), but the CBA negotiations are where Smith's going to have to earn his salary.

Upshaw would've never settled. don't discount the connection between the retired players and CBA. if Smith can get the retired players on board, then he gathers far more leverage and a far larger/louder voice in taking his case to the NFL, and something Upshaw didn't have.

 

this is becoming a very intriguing chess game and so far Smith is making all the right moves. and he had to, because the union had been in such disarray following Gene's death. there was a lot of political manouvering going on in the background with numerous people attempting to fill the power vacuum and also attempting to get "their" man in the seat.

though Smith was regarded as the outsider, there was also a perception that the old guard (Upshaw's proteges) wanted Smith because they could then maintain control while Smith was learning the ropes. they thought wrong.

 

for the good of pro football, i'm hoping that the league's front-office didn't underestimate Smith either. there was a perception, also, that the NFL was going to walk all over a union that seemed divided during the election process. that, currently, is not the case.

 

jw

[Gordio]

don't know if they'll push on it too far. i think this is more of a cosmetic argument that works to the NFLPA's advantage in two ways: it's a good topic the union can use to stir up the troops and get them on board, and also a good thrust at the owners and their claim they're losing money. "losing money? how can that be when you got these government incentives, etc., benefits, which we don't see a penny of."

 

i don't see this as a make-or-break argument, just part of the back-and-forth.

 

what's more intriguing, and one that scares the NFL, is Smith's Beltway connections, particularly his work with Pres. Obama. if the union ever goes to decertify again, that brings in the specter of anti-trust laws being introduced against the NFL ... and the owners certainly don't want that.

again, these are some of the tools in the union's toolbox. not sure how willing they are to use them, but they're there.

 

jw

 

The bottom line here is that they have an agreement in place that simply does not work. The financial structure has been broken with the current CBA. I could careless how much of a pitbull attorney Smith is, he is playing with a losing hand right now & my guess is right now he is smart enough to know this. My guess is work stoppage be dam, the owners are going to dig in & not give in until they get the deal they want. The competitive balance in the league depends on it. For every Dallas or New york there are 5 other teams like Buffalo/Jacksonville, New orleans etc... I have no doubt there will be a work stoppage & once these players start missing game checks & given the fact of the short life span of the average NFL player, not to mention some high end players(Brady/Manning) entering there final stages of their careers & not wanting to miss out on a season at this stage of their careerts, the heat is going to be turned up on Smith to get a deal done. I fully suspect the new agreement to be salaries closer to 50% of revenues & a rookie salary cap. The owners may throw a bone to the players by guaranteeing 50% of a players contract or something to that extent.

 

BTW, Ralph Wilson was clearly an old senile fool for speaking up when he did. ESPN, Peter King & all the other moron media that ridiculed & chastised him owe him an apology.

[dogbyte]

Even though it was a bad deal for the owners, it gave them time to sign a new TV contract that guarantees money even if there is a work stoppage. It also gave the owners time to build up a war chest of money for each team to ride out any lockout. This is what many owners knew would happen which is why there was an opt out clause. The contract gave them labor peace for a couple of years and time to get ready. This is why so many owners voted for the CBA.

[Delete This Account]

The bottom line here is that they have an agreement in place that simply does not work. The financial structure has been broken with the current CBA. I could careless how much of a pitbull attorney Smith is, he is playing with a losing hand right now & my guess is right now he is smart enough to know this. My guess is work stoppage be dam, the owners are going to dig in & not give in until they get the deal they want. The competitive balance in the league depends on it. For every Dallas or New york there are 5 other teams like Buffalo/Jacksonville, New orleans etc... I have no doubt there will be a work stoppage & once these players start missing game checks & given the fact of the short life span of the average NFL player, not to mention some high end players(Brady/Manning) entering there final stages of their careers & not wanting to miss out on a season at this stage of their careerts, the heat is going to be turned up on Smith to get a deal done. I fully suspect the new agreement to be salaries closer to 50% of revenues & a rookie salary cap. The owners may throw a bone to the players by guaranteeing 50% of a players contract or something to that extent.

 

BTW, Ralph Wilson was clearly an old senile fool for speaking up when he did. ESPN, Peter King & all the other moron media that ridiculed & chastised him owe him an apology.

with all due respect Gordio, the only way the union will go for 50 percent is if all money (licensing fees, marketing fees) counts in the forumla. i don't see Smith as having the losing hand. it's the owners who have all come out and said they blew it during contract talks so they're the ones who will have to figure out how to establish a new one.

 

while, yes, players won't be getting checks, don't disregard the amounts of money owners will be losing during a lockout. no TV contract, no suites, no hot-dog/beer money. and threat of having the union decertify, which would open the door to the introduction of anti-trust laws, which would lead to the potential of congressional oversight of football. ... there's a lot at stake on both sides.

 

jw

[Lori]

FIFTY percent, Gordio? Guaranteed contracts or no, the players would stay out until Doomsday.

 

And yes, John, Smith has done am impressive job of fence-mending. I'm also interested to see how the new Alumni Association plays into it. Bruce Laird was one of the NFLPA's most outspoken critics; with the Fourth and Goal merger, has he officially gone over to the league's side? And how much pull does his group really have?

[KRC]

true, there are numerous retired players who are still skeptical. Joe D, for one. by reaching the deal, though, Smith at least was able to offer an olive branch rather than a kick in the face. the move also de-emphasized the role union attorney's Jeffrey Kessler and Richard Berthelsen have had. both were held in very low regard by the retired players, and both were intent on proceeding with the lawsuit as Upshaw would've wanted.

 

Smith has at the very least gained some credibility, and Herb Adderley's comments commending Smith were a clear sign that a thaw might be in the making.

 

Smith, like Troy Vincent and David Cornwell (two of the three people he ran against for the Executive Director job), all stressed that resolving the dispute with retired players was just as important as the CBA talks. as Adderley's lawyer put it, Smith has begun putting his money where his mouth is.

 

jw

 

There is no question that Smith is moving in the right direction and the retired players have taken notice. I would say the attitude from the players I have talked to is "cautiously optimistic." Smith is saying the right things and has shown (at least in the EA case), that it is not just talk. Still, it takes time to undo the damage created by Upshaw.

[Gordio]

with all due respect Gordio, the only way the union will go for 50 percent is if all money (licensing fees, marketing fees) counts in the forumla. i don't see Smith as having the losing hand. it's the owners who have all come out and said they blew it during contract talks so they're the ones who will have to figure out how to establish a new one.

 

while, yes, players won't be getting checks, don't disregard the amounts of money owners will be losing during a lockout. no TV contract, no suites, no hot-dog/beer money. and threat of having the union decertify, which would open the door to the introduction of anti-trust laws, which would lead to the potential of congressional oversight of football. ... there's a lot at stake on both sides.

 

jw

 

Okay, 50% might have been on the low side but I think we could both agree it certainly not going to be the 58-59% that it is now.