DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 18 Game Schedule/Collective Bargaining Update

web page

Keeping Score
Game Over: Should the NFL Show Players the Money?
By Sean Gregory Friday, Jan. 21, 2011
On a recent Tuesday morning in Washington, D.C., around 25 NFL players sat in a drab conference room listening to how, in the not-so subtle opinion of the speaker, their bosses were screwing them. Though these players were veterans on the field, they were rookies in this arena. DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, was delivering a presentation as part of an orientation for new union representatives. In many respects, Smith, the lead negotiator for the players, was giving a pregame speech, and like any good coach, his tone was incendiary, his message clear: you have to be prepared for what's ahead, your opponent doesn't think that highly of you, and this may be the most important fight of your lives. "We will do everything we have to do to protect ourselves," Smith told the players. "We will counterpunch."

All the bluster that day was a mere prelude to what could transpire starting March 4, when the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players, which governs the business of football, expires. That day is pro-football Armageddon, and it could easily lead to the temporary halting of a thriving, multibillion-dollar business, which this weekend features two classic conference championship matches, the Green Bay Packers at the Chicago Bears and the New York Jets at the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Which means this year more than any other, fans had better enjoy the weekend's championship games — possibly the NFL's most exciting day, even better than the Super Bowl, given the charged atmosphere in totally partisan, often frigid stadiums. After all, there's a real chance they won't see them next year. If the league's players and owners can't sign a deal by March 4, the owners will most likely lock the players out of their facilities, and shut down the booming game of football.

For the owners, no football means no revenues from ticket sales and beer and soda, but no hefty salaries to pay for star players. And since the owners signed remarkably favorable TV deals that give them money regardless of whether or not games are played, they have a bit of a cushion (though they'll have to pay a portion of that money back later). For the players, no football means no paycheck, and loss of earning power during their prime athletic years. And for fans, well, no football wouldn't just be a bitter disappointment that could rearrange their fall weekend schedules, but also a betrayal of intense loyalty that could permanently damage America's best sports brand.

Both sides will continue to spin their arguments. The owners say that costs outpace the NFL's revenue growth, which has been remarkable: 43%, in total, since 2006, according to an analysis done by Forbes, which calculated that in 2009, the league booked $9.3 billion in revenue. But the owners claim that since, in part, player compensation has doubled over the past decade — according to the league — players need to take a smaller share of a growing revenue pie. That proposal, the union says, amounts to an 18% pay cut for its membership.

The labor tussle is happening at the same time that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is pushing to expand the season to 18 games — there are currently 16 — a move that would surely grow revenue, and increase the pot for the players, but appears to fly in the face of the league's new emphasis on player safety. Additional games, the players say, put our future earnings at risk, since NFL contracts are not fully guaranteed in the first place, a notable difference from pro basketball and pro baseball for which the union has been criticized over the years.

When it comes to fights over money, neither pro-football players nor owners are easy to root for. The owners are rich enough to begin with, and the players, though they take part in a violent game that risks their long-term health, are compensated handsomely.

Yet in the p.r. war, the NFL's success will likely bite the owners more. Public indicators of the game's overall health are overwhelmingly positive. The sport is setting ratings records every week, revenues are strong, and ESPN is reportedly close to agreeing to increase the fee it pays the NFL to telecast Monday Night Football to around $2 billion annually, an increase of at least 65%. "I mean, if there was a problem in the National Football League with money, fine, let's fix it," Smith said during his pep talk to players. "But we can't be in a world where we don't think the National Football League is doing better than frankly any other business in America."

The NFL, not surprisingly, rejects that assertion. "Costs must be properly balanced against revenue so that the league and the game can continue to grow," Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of public relations, wrote earlier this month, in an article published on ESPN.com. "Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they did not properly manage their costs."

It's a reasonable argument. But in response, the union makes its own very reasonable point that, frankly, seems pretty hard to dispute. If costs are so high, and teams are not making as much money as they used to, why can't the NFL show the players each team's full audited financial statements, which would include a bottom-line item — net income, or profit (or loss) — that gives both sides a fuller accounting of the league's financial state?

Well, the NFL says, we've given the union more information than we ever have in prior negotiations, including audited revenues. "They know more about our revenues than most unions know about the revenues of the businesses they work in," Jeff Pash, the NFL's lead negotiator, recently said in an interview with Politico about the transparency issue.

But if it's all about costs, critics rightly wonder, why the is league not telling the union the full story with audited team costs, and therefore audited team bottom lines. The NFL says it has never provided team profit numbers before, and the sport has had labor peace for 20 years. It also might be concerned that the union would leak this information to the public. But aren't we talking about the same public that forks over millions to subsidize stadiums and pours money into the pockets of both owners and players? Isn't there a strong case to make that they also have a right to get a look at the books?

The NBA's collective bargaining agreement also expires soon — on June 30 — and the NFL points out that even though that league recently turned over audited statements to the players, the union disputed those numbers. What's to stop the same thing from happening here, the NFL asks. It's true, of course, that the union will likely spin the numbers, and even dispute any information the NFL hands over. But at this point, could the two sides get any further away from a deal than they already are?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that if team finances were truly hurting, the NFL would be chucking books at the players. "I wouldn't be able to walk down the street without being bombarded with financial statements," says Smith, the NFL Players Association executive director. "Here's a copy for your kitchen, here's one for your bathroom." One club, the Packers, makes its information public since fans can actually buy shares in the team. In the fiscal year that ended last March 31, the team pulled in $9.8 million in profits, compared with $20.1 million for the previous year. But in a league with 32 teams, the union won't be satisfied with a fraction of the story.

As a private enterprise, the NFL has no legal obligation to hand over the books. So in a sticky labor negotiation, any smart business would hold its cards, right? But then again, the NFL isn't your typical private company. If a lawyer, say, isn't happy with his salary or thinks his bosses are hoarding too much cash, the free market lets him go work at another firm. But in football, there's simply no other league where players can be similarly compensated for their specialized skills.

Smith, a former prosecutor and litigator who took over for the late Gene Upshaw, a Hall of Fame player, in 2009, is fond of sketching out his arguments on a whiteboard, like a coach diagramming his plays. During another meeting on that Tuesday in Washington, he wrote three things that, from the union's perspective, are essential for getting a deal done: "Data. Data. Data." For the good of the game, and the fans, isn't it time for the league to show all of us — the players, the fans — the money?

Sean Gregory is a staff writer at TIME. His sports column appears every Friday at TIME.com.

And that's what it all boils down to.

The owners don't want to show what the bottom dollar is because they opted out of the CBA early with the contention that the players get too much coin from them and showing the NFLPA the true bottom line may invalidate this. There can't be any other reason where they would withhold it.

Maybe they realize this and are simply holdiing out with it as a negotiating tool to get the things they truly want out of a new deal, and that is the 18 game schedule and the imposition of a rookie salary scale.

Quote:

---

..I am sure places like Carolina are nearing the edge.

---

At the same time Jerry Jones has been adamant about not wanting to share certain merchandising revenues with the smaller market teams.

Since he seems to be a big voice in this current CBA issue I wonder if this isn't his way of helping the smaller market teams, (by way of reducing the player's money and increasing the season to 18 games), so he can keep his merchandise sales for himself.

I might be talking out my butt since I haven't followed this thing beyond what I read on here. But the whole thing stinks to me.

If my boss wants me to take a pay cut and is willing to show me his profit/loss statement and I see he is struggling or will be in the near future then I'd be a lot more willing to oblige. But if he won't disclose any facts to back up his claim then I'm wondering if he just needs more money to build himself a bigger house or buy another monster boat.

I've got no problem with an owner making a ton of money. He's the one doing the most work and taking all the risk. But if he wants me to pay some of his bills I would like to know that he is truly struggling to do so or will be soon if everything stays the same. Other wise I'm suspicious of his real intentions.

I really hope there's no lockout but I'm afraid we're going to see at least a short one. Players lose big as not only do their paychecks stop but so does their medical care in the middle of rehabbing their injuries. Sure, plenty of them can afford their own care but they won't be treated by the team physicians as they have been. That's a real suckage part of the whole thing. It seems the players will have to bow down to the deal at least more than they want to because of this more than anything.

If the lockout were to be prolonged it will start to negatively effect the very cities where the teams are based and the owners will be faced with on heck of a backlash for their excessive(?) demands.

So there. If you read me this far you've just heard the ramblings of someone who doesn't really understand any of it.

I'm with you,...I'll never "understand" how millionaires fight over pennies. I know all the why's and how's,....but it's all a big stack-of-cards fantasy otherwise, just like the techno bubble and housing markets,...everything crashes at some point,...

JC

For the past year / year and a half Shep has been posting updates on the CBA and negotiations. He has attempted his best to try to educate the board members on whats going on here, what is at stake and just how terribly important this issue is.

Quite frankly, I am dismayed at the reaction from this board. Many of you pay no attention to this issue nor do many of you understand the basics of the issue. I understand that labor / management issues are not sexy things and more often than not they are complicated things.

But.. you guys understand SAM's MIKE's, two gaps, one gaps dimes and nickles. You should be able to comprehend whats going on here.

I urge you guys to take a look at whats going on.. I understand that people may say "I can't do a thing about it.. it's out of my hands" While that may be true to some extent, (Season ticket holders can certainly let the clubs know how they feel) I think it's important that we understand what happens when there is no professional football next September.

I still don't think it will come to that.

We may pass the March deadline, but something will break the impass.

I hope so anyway. I know I am not very enthusiastic about sending in season ticket money only to be told the money will apply to the 2012 season.

Oh boy, now THAT will honk me off. Then my attitude becomes.. "What about the time value of MY money?"

Millionaires fighting with billionaires has already priced out most fans from going to a game. With the price of gas, ticket, hotel room, food and drinks I can get NFL sunday ticket, stay home bbq, drink enough beer to make a Browns game appear exciting and come still come out ahead.

So if there is a lockout or strike, I will see it as both sides getting what they deserve when they receive a baseball type backlash from fans that have had enough of it.

Quote:

---

Quite frankly, I am dismayed at the reaction from this board. Many of you pay no attention to this issue nor do many of you understand the basics of the issue. I understand that labor / management issues are not sexy things and more often than not they are complicated things.

---

Speaking only for myself, business issues have never been my strong area. I read everything on here and some things on the web. But the concerns from both sides don't always make sense to me and it's difficult to see the big picture.

Right off the bat I was on the players side because I'm a players kind of guy rather than an owners kind of guy. I would suspect that business owners lean toward the owners concerns because they're owners kind of guys.

This is all very big business.

From my experience, from my level and typical viewpoint, it's hard to see it from a business angle. For instance, until Fujita mentioned it in his letter it never occurred to me that not only would many support people be out of work during a lockout but that it would also have a huge impact on the cities who depend upon their NFL team for much of their revenue and taxes. Until that was brought to my attention I saw it as an owners vs. players issue only.

So take it easy on us who are not political thinkers or business savvy types. That makes a big difference in how we see this whole issue. While I agree that this is a majorly important issue that can effect the NFL both currently and for the foreseeable future it's not easy to understand all the ramifications that it encompasses.

Sometimes, when trying to understand these types of issues it comes to a point of throwing up ones hands in the confusion of being overwhelmed over the whole thing.

You and Mourg make good points. The important thing is that you are being exposed to this.. you are getting some information. This is good.

Thanks for the lecture, dad. Some of us understand the situation perfectly well, including things like decertification and the possible ramifications of last years American Needle v. NFL ruling.

Like captainphil said, there's just not much worth discussing on a message board, given that it's all out of our hands.

Well, if you think about it everything's out of our hands but we still discuss stuff on here.

Yes, but it's typically more interesting to talk about, thus those topics get more posts. I was only making the point that a lack of posting interest does not necessarily indicate a lack of knowledge of the situation by posters on this board.

I love The Replacements, Strike ball might give us a shot. No good reason to kill this Golden Goose that is the NFL IMO. But the first statement here is tongue in cheek. Those old enough to remember the lockout season should want no part of it. This settled fairly helps the game; Getting in a peeing contest to prove something, even valid, game (read fans) suffer. This is one of the few good things in in bad, hard times. Hate to lose it. I feel priced out already, NFL exclusives and blackouts leave a bad taste in me mouth.

You're welcome junior.

J/C... fyi...

Ben Watson is supposed to be on the Scott Van Pelt show on ESPN Radio sometime this hour, apparently to talk about the labor situation.

webbage

Aww geeez.. I swear this is getting messier by the minute.

Union upset with franchise tags

DALLAS (AP) -- Go ahead and add franchise tags to the lengthy list of issues the NFL and its players disagree about.

The league is telling clubs they can place that designation on players whose contracts are expiring, even if there's no new collective bargaining agreement to replace the one that ends March 3. The union sent a letter to agents Thursday to tell them the NFL is wrong about that.

"Our position is that you can franchise anyone you want, by whatever date you want, but if there is no CBA, the franchise tags will be meaningless," NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith said.

Arguing that the 2011 season does not fall under the current CBA, the union said in a statement that the "NFL has no valid basis for claiming the right to franchise players in 2011."

In response, league spokesman Greg Aiello said via e-mail to The Associated Press: "We are still operating under the current agreement. ... Franchise tags are always made before the start of the next league year. This is consistent with past seasons."

The franchise tag allows each team to prevent one player from becoming an unrestricted free agent by offering him a one-year contract that's worth 120 percent of his salary from the season before or the average of the five highest-paid players at his position, whichever is greater. Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning is among the players who would be affected this offseason.

The dispute is only one of many between owners and players

"The disagreements that we have are fundamental," Smith said.

The main issues include how to divide about $9 billion in annual revenues; the owners' push to expand the regular season to 18 games; a rookie wage scale; benefits for retired players.

The two sides are scheduled to have their first formal bargaining session since November on Saturday.

"I don't think it's a good idea to set any expectation, other than the fact that we intend to sit down and continue to have a discussion that should guarantee football for our fans, football for our players," Smith said.

NFLPA spokesman George Atallah described Saturday's meeting as "a window of opportunity" and added: "We intend to go in there with open minds and open ears."

Speaking to the media a day before NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's annual pre-Super Bowl news conference, Smith said the two men have "a great relationship."

Smith also repeated what he's been saying for quite some time: The union is convinced that the NFL has been planning since at least 2007 to lock out players this year. The old CBA was agreed to in 2006 and was supposed to last through 2012, but the owners exercised an opt-out clause in 2008.

"I believe that the league has taken steps to effectuate a lockout for a very long time," Smith said. "The players are committed to making sure that does not happen."

Not surprising...it's pretty well known that the players hate the franchise tag. They're looking for the long-term deal.

They have to designate franchise tagged players in February so I see teams/the league within their right to tag players at the current time.

On March 4th the CBA expires, so I believe that on that date the tags are meaningless unless they incorporate it back into a new agreement to include those that were tagged this month.

There are currently no Transition tags available since the owners opted out of the CBA.

I listened to the union rep for a while yesterday,, This is the first time I actually felt as if there was indeed going to be a lockout... Tell ya what fellas, I don't get a good feeling about this at all..

There'll be bluster from blowhards - on both sides - to the eleventh hour. I am not seriously concerned, as of yet.

who made up the date that this had to be signed by?

Quote:

---

The league is telling clubs they can place that designation on players whose contracts are expiring, even if there's no new collective bargaining agreement to replace the one that ends March 3. The union sent a letter to agents Thursday to tell them the NFL is wrong about that.

"Our position is that you can franchise anyone you want, by whatever date you want, but if there is no CBA, the franchise tags will be meaningless," NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith said.

---

The way I see it, teams have a right to use the franchise tag under the current agreement which expires on March 3, 11:59 pm.

Since free agency begins March 1, 2011, the franchise tags will be applicable until this current NFL contract expires on March 3, 11:59 pm....or for 72 hours (Mar 1 to beginning of Mar 4).

The franchise tag expires when the old contract expires on March 3, 11:59pm...at that point, the franchise tag issue and effective dates become another item to be negotiated in the new contract...imo.

Man, that article is really only the start of how nasty this is going to get. There is too much on the table to think they'll sort it all out and have a full season. Heck, just the discussion of how the owners want to pull current money away from the players is enough to potentially delay the season and then they still have to discuss the 18-game season, a rookie salary scale, and retired player benefits. I'm sure the players will also want to get rid of the franchise tag too.

It's going to get very, very ugly.

From what I have read, this should be over relatively quickly.

Obviously you can take that and my opinion for what it's worth.

At the end of the day, the owners will be willing to give a few concessions, but this isn't about just money as much as it's about power for them. They want to add in new games and control the players for a long time. They will at least sacrafice some time to do that (or appear to).

The players know they need to stick together to win this, but the longer it drags out the more the players will start to cave. Not all of them are smart and have savings, and many of them just want to get on the field again. Percentage wise a lockout would hurt the players a lot more than it would hurt the owners (a guy with an average career of only 3 to 4 years .. where 1 year is eliminated .. versus an owner who bites a BIG bullet of a full year, but could realistically make that all up in a few years with an 18 game schedule and restructered other benefits).

I don't think it will be done overnight, but I think this will be taken care of very quickly, either by agreement or by the players caving so that they can get paid and have insurance as well soon.

I hope you're right.

Maybe the owners are just asking for the moon now, so they appear to cave on a few areas while getting 1 or 2 of the items they really want.

Let's look at their list again:

1. Reduce player salaries by X%
2. 18-game schedule
3. Rookie salary wage scale (which I'm convinced the players want to protect the rookies AND keep the average money per position going up - Bradford's contract will be used as a baseline for any future QB deal - those rookie deals keep raising the bar for the vets)
4. No increase in retired player benefits

Maybe their gameplan is to drop #1 and say give us #2. So it's a wash.

Quote:

---

Let's look at their list again:

1. Reduce player salaries by X%
2. 18-game schedule
3. Rookie salary wage scale (which I'm convinced the players want to protect the rookies AND keep the average money per position going up - Bradford's contract will be used as a baseline for any future QB deal - those rookie deals keep raising the bar for the vets)
4. No increase in retired player benefits

---

Is that really what they want? I haven't followed the thread but that is ridiculous...

I wouldn't mind if they held salaries fairly stable for a while but they aren't going to get them reduced.

I'm against the 18 game schedule because that would put you in your 20th or 21st game of competitive football if you get to the super bowl.. and that's just too many.

Rookie salary wage scale I can get on board with. A top draft pick who has never taken a snap, at any position, should never come in making more than a 5 year veteran who has been to a couple pro-bowls and proven himself..

And if they don't increase benefits for former players I could lose some respect for everybody involved with the league, it's a shame the way they treat the players that paved the way for them.. those guys made a tenth of what the players make today, played in much worse conditions, didn't have the same level of equipment, didn't have the lucrative post playing opportunities... this is one that the PLAYERS should really stand their ground on.. They don't have to make every former player rich but they need to do something.

Hope you are right, PSTU24. One thing I agree with as negotiating experience goes, for what mine is worth as well, is this is a classic peeing contest. Money enough for everybody. Talk is about "growing the game" in media coverage. So a lockout is illogical UNLESS the bigger issue is underneath, which I agree is power and control of the game. I want a bigger pie, I want you to have a smaller slice, and I want to dictate the terms.
End of day, which dog is on top? Sometimes these "unspoken and unlisted" true issues can be backbreakers, or are intended to be. When the posturing stops, the other guy's needs are most important. Realistically, the players get what owners give or have to act on their convictions and everybody plays Humpty-Dumpty scrambling to pick up the pieces. Hopefully older and wiser and cooler heads will see it through. If neither side is entirely happy it is probably a workable agreement. For what it may be worth, it seems owners are really wanting it to get ugly to serve notice. I have been wrong before.

I agree with this assessment somewhat.

These "older" players did get paid well for the period in which they played. Wages in all walks of employment have gone up over the years.

There is way more money generated by the league now than in the past, and the salaries are testament to this.

IMO it is the union, that should take care of the older "members". If the salary structure stays the same, IMO the players should have to cover the "legacy" coasts of the older "members". They are a union, that's how it works. When a team signs a contract with a player member, they are not responsible for past members.

These salaries, even at the low end are big. Just like union dues, the members should be asked to contribute a percentage, albeit a small one, to cover the older members who have been a part of the union, but did not get the benefits available to the present members.

If there wasn't a union, and the players worked for the team, much like a company employee. I would say that the owners should pick up the tab for these legacy costs. But it is a union, and the members should take care of their own.

I have several friends who are in trade unions. Many have 30+ years. They have maxed out there pensions, but they still contribute to the pool. The players union should be no different.

I've heard guys like Terry Bradshaw talk about how much he made compared to the players now. But when Bradshaw was playing, the money he made was still a good bit compared to the common worker. The arguement about their careers being only a few years doesn't flush with me.

If you play pro ball and make 750,000 a year for say five years, retire with a pension, and still are in your early thirties, you still have opportunities to begin a second career. You are probably even financially able to start a business and benefit from the fact that you are an ex-player. Many have car dealerships and use their name recognition to bolster sales.

The violent nature of the sport is always used to justify the large salaries, and many say it is not enough to make up for the physical toll it takes on them. I say bull. There are many occupations that are health risks that don't even come close to the salaries these guys get. You can use the military as the best example.

IMO the greed is overwhelming on both sides of the debate, but, there is a difference in "owning" a company, and being an employee. I see no problem with the owners making a bigger cut of the pie, it is not like the players are starving, most are set for life after a couple years.

As for the 18 game season. They should just get rid of two preseason games, and keep the season at 16. This is where IMO the owners show there greed. With OTAs and all the minicamps and training camp, the team is decided well before the last two preseason games. Charging a season ticket holder for these practice games is rediculous. The TV and radio rights alone should be sufficient for the owners. This is where the violent nature should be discussed. IMO injuries would be way up with more games.

I would like to see two preseason games, a 16 game season, and each team get two bye weeks, one early, and one later in the season. This would help keep the players a little healthier come playoff time. I also think the gameday roster should include all 53 players.

The bottom line is that players can be replaced. Just like regular workplace employees and Lance Corporals.

Players prove time and time again they can't handle the fame because of the money they are paid now,...why pay them even more ?

Owners win. I hope there is a lockout.

Quote:

---

If you play pro ball and make 750,000 a year for say five years, retire with a pension, and still are in your early thirties, you still have opportunities to begin a second career. You are probably even financially able to start a business and benefit from the fact that you are an ex-player. Many have car dealerships and use their name recognition to bolster sales.

---

Not to mention they SHOULD have a college degree that they got at no cost that they should be able to use.

...,...that a lot of them ran away from to get the money in the first place.

I can solve all their problems.

2 preseason games 19 game schedule.
1 game will be played in a foreign country for each team
Players are only allowed to participate in 16 regular season games.
Rosters are extended to 65.


Rookie scale is wanted and needed by everyone but rookie contracts should not be allowed to go beyond 2 years.

Instead of a salary cap jumping every year going by percentage *which is the big argument* just decide on a set number for the duration of the CBA. I think that is something both owners and players can see and be fine with it. Now I also think that the team should have to spend the entire cap amount each year.

All problems solved. Lets play football.

The NFL should invest in a minor league. Each team would have a minor league team to where they can grow and groom there players.