DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement: Part Three

From 2006 - 2009 the players cap was an average of 57.25% of the total revenues made by the NFL during those years. That's a smaller % then under the old model of Defined Gross revenues (DGR).
The players profited from every dollar earned in the new model even though they were not making 63% or greater as in the past...

Now they had a cut of the whole "pot" and the salary cap actually increased even though their % decreased.

Suddenly the owners asking for a pay back by the players doesn't look so out place or unwarranted, because the players have been making more then the owners over the last CBA.

Their (the owners) offer of 141 million cap in 2011 is still 13 million above the last capped year in 2009 (128 million) add to that a 90% minimum, to go along with a rookie 1st round cap, multiplied by 32 and there is a substantial gain in revenue to the veteran player pool.

Sorry folks this does not look like the players were asked to take a pay cut.

The players would receive less then they would have under the old CBA, but then I question whether or not they were fair to the owners under the old CBA.

Their (the players) projected figures for the year 2014 of 201 million is just absurd imo. It's a joke if you ask me.

The players and fans who support the players side are stuck on the % and not the bottom line.

The players just don't get the fact that the owners are not going to allow business as usual to continue.

That's why they are locked out today as I said they would be.

Greedy vs. Greedy!



Spy vs. Spy, this is the picture that comes to mind when the NFL and NFLPA start teeing off on one another.

The NFL, a collection of 32 individual owners agreeing to run their business with the same set of basic self-imposed rules but individual enough they still hold autonomy to affect their bottom line. A small section of those rules prevent their employees from just up and walking out and joining another team. They are a monopoly.

The Players, mistakenly see themselves as "partners" in this venture as opposed to what they really are, employees, just employees on a really big leash. As an employee of Bill Paint Store, if Bill makes me mad or I don't like the working conditions, I can just quit and drive down the street and get a job at Fred's Paint Store. This is the freedom the players don't have and the basic crux of their argument for special treatment or consideration under this monopoly.

Free agency is the key. If owners were to allow it and players could move about different teams at will they could pay the players whatever they wanted to as the players would have no legal recourse to suggest they should get more. This would pretty much kill the NFL and the "any given sunday" line as teams with more money would have all the best players and always win.

I suppose the 32 owners could sell their teams to the NFL of which they could become a 1/32 owner and remove the monopoly as you would have one business entity and 32 divisions. The small market owners would probably jump on this one but the large market owners would scream to the heavens about investments and capital and you'd have greedy vs. greedy internally.

The players have an argument on their side, if they agree to have their movement within the NFL restricted, they want a bigger piece of the pie. Well they want to be partners who don't share in the monetary risk but that's completely silly, so they'll settle for a bigger piece of the pie and just consider themselves partners.

Hollywood went through this as the studio's used to "own" the actors by contract and colluded with one another to keep the actors in their place. The actors formed the screen actors guild to collectively bargain to move about as they wished and while it affected the bottom line of the studio's, it didn't kill the industry as fans aren't tied to a particular studio like they are an NFL team, the movie industry survived and flourished. The NFL would not be the golden goose it is with total free agency.

As a general average, avoiding the nitpicking of tv revenue vs. jersey sales vs. ticket prices and so on, the owners should capitulate to give 60% of annual total revenue to the players if they agree on the free agency structure set forth by the NFL avoiding the nitpicking of how that structure is set forth.

How that 60% is divvied up between active players, retired players, medical and so on, I think would be fun to watch if it all fell into the hands of the NFLPA and took the owners out of it. Then we would have the players vs. the NFLPA and we could watch them eat their own.

No matter which side you're on, if you're on a side at all, it's certainly a more entertaining off-season than past seasons to be sure. I don't think either side is crazy enough to not have a full season this year, maybe they are, but I think both sides are greedy enough to settle this long before any risk to the season occurs.

I love the Spy vs Spy reference.. Perfect man.. Absolutly Perfect. Gave me a chuckle this morning.

To me, here it is in a nutshell:

Quote:

---

The Players, mistakenly see themselves as "partners" in this venture as opposed to what they really are, employees, just employees on a really big leash.

---

And they are employees paid a heck of a lot of money..

^This letter was already posted above.

I like how they are saying that they want to keep it the same (50/50) when in reality it was more like 60/40 in their favor. They have out gained the NFL owners in total revenue and think that they should continue to get the bigger piece of pie.

We need to look no farther then last years team payrolls to see how things would work if there were no cap in a total FA market.

#1 was the NY Giants who spent more then 138 million for the 2010 year. The Browns on the other hand spent some 40 million less.

And the 4 year career average is also a skewed number... Take away the draft bust and those whom where not good enough to be at this level and that number doubles. Those players that were given an opportunity at the risk of the owners, but they for whatever reason did not make it would be considered a loss in any other business and not a part of the profit margin.

Quote:

---

I like how they are saying that they want to keep it the same (50/50) when in reality it was more like 60/40 in their favor. They have out gained the NFL owners in total revenue and think that they should continue to get the bigger piece of pie.

---

Wrong.

The division of revenue was AFTER 1 billion dollars was taken from the pot already and spread amongst the franchises.

The owners wanted the new deal to include that they get an additional 1 billion off the top before division.

I also don't know why the players should get 50% of revenues.

I can't think of any other business that follows that type of scale. In my business, we're allowed roughly 25% of net sales for wages. Now I realize that this is almost totally a service business ... but so what? Let the players go play for another league if they are unhappy with the terms and conditions imposed by this set of employers. Let's see how many of them get $100 million contracts from the CFL.

NFL players have it pretty damn well. They work full time from August through January. If they play into February, they get a substantial bonus. They work several weekends during the off-season ..... and maybe a couple of weeks. The rest of the time is theirs. They do have to stay in shape ..... but is that a full time job?

Hell, baseball players play 4-5 games/week for months on end over the course of a 162 game schedule. If they make it all the way to the world series, add on another month and a half ..... and maybe another You can add on maybe another 19 games ...... more just in the playoffs than the NFL players are whining about playing for the whole damn year. Basketball players may fly across the country and play 2 games in different cities on back to back nights. The play 82 games ...... and another what ... possible 28 games in the playoffs? The NBA can sometimes be damn near as physical as the NFL ... only without pads.

NFL players are complaining about the possibility of playing 18 games. They want more of the money, and want to give nothing in return. They want, and want, and want, and want ...... well, let them go buy a few teams, start their own league, pay all of the bills, and then they can go play *ahem* for themselves.

J/C

The NFL is a proven Commodity. The best players coming out of College are what makes this league, not the Owners. If someone started a new league using the same format, and the NFL got the best of the rest or Castoffs from this new league we would call it the CFL or UFL. It doesn't matter what risk the owners take in this..they will always make money..maybe they would like more money but if they don't like it get out of the business and start a scab league and see how much money they make then. How many people watch the UFL? This is pretty basic stuff here, supply and demand. Now if the owners and the players can agree that the prices of Merchandise and a gameday experience is out of hand and would like to make it more affordable and each take concessions to accomodate more fans..then that would be great..but that will never happen, because people pay no matter what. Not because the owners, but because of the product on the field. Joe Schmoe could be the owner and no one cares.. It is like that in anything.. If I am a world famous Chef and I bring in People just by myself and the owner says he wants to make more money I need to take a pay cut, I go down the street to the guy that will pay me for what I bring to the table,,or as many do they start their own restaurant.. so maybe this is the end of the NFL and a whole new league is started with guys that will pay the money...Don't think there aren't investor saavy guys salivating at the thought of taking this out of the hands of the NFL...No one cares who the owners are..just the players...It would be cool to see Dan Gilbert and Cuban get together and start to turn the wheels a little..watch how quick these owners give in..You guys can watch these owners make more money with a less than average product..then you will be happy.

Quote:

---

And they are employees paid a heck of a lot of money..

---

Here we go agreeably disagreeing again.

They are partners as the letter said. They split the profits. They share the risks of that. If the revenues goes down everybody's take goes down with it, owners and players alike.

If they were merely employees and the revenues went down the players would not lose anything but rather keep the same "wage". At that it would be only the owners who would lose profit. But the way it's set up they prosper or lose together.

That is a partner. Maybe that's a partner in a manner, but a partner nonetheless. Where I work, if the owner loses money I don't because I'm an employee.

And never forget that there are 32 owners and over 2000 players. So often it is mentioned that the players get a bigger slice then the owners. Duh. Give each player the same amount each owner gets and it becomes ridiculous.

A flip-side of that is that if there were 32 businesses the size of each of the teams, (in terms of gross revenue), then there would be one hell of a lot more than 2000 workers(players). Of course there are more as coaches, staff, executives and the such but none of them factor into the players money.

If owners are willing to give $20-$30-$40-$50 million dollar guarantees to top rookies and take the chance they may bust then it's not anyone's fault other than their own that the players individual salaries are so high and that their take is so large. AND it sure doesn't prove that they are fearing an economic collapse. They have to have known all along that the higher they pay the top rookies, the higher they set the bar for free agent contracts.

Sure the players get a large take. But exactly who made it that large and who is getting blamed for it? And is the football players percentage larger than the other professional sports? And is the revenue generated by the other professional sports anywhere near the amount of money generated by the NFL?

I primarily side with the players, but I do see that there has to be free agent restriction and I believe the players see that as well. If the league is forecasting economic uncertainty I believe the players are willing to help out if it can be proven to be more than a half-truth in an effort to full fill a greed.

The players have it good, no doubt. But they've never asked for more money. They have however, asked that what they already have not be taken away without good reason and good reason must be proven. Otherwise it's just somebody making statements as a means to an end.

Both sides have to give and take and so far I'm not seeing that.

Quote:

---

Dear Roger:

This responds to the letter you sent to all NFL players on March 17.

---

As I said a week or two ago, more shall be revealed.

Quote:

---

The NFL is a proven Commodity. The best players coming out of College are what makes this league, not the Owners. If someone started a new league using the same format, and the NFL got the best of the rest or Castoffs from this new league we would call it the CFL or UFL.

---

you mean, like the AFL days? it's been done. if the players want to start a league and go there,, Good for them,. I guarantee you, once they see how it works, how the money flows in and out, they will then, and only then understand that as owners, investors etc, they are entitled the profits.

Agreeable disagreement,, I kinda like that

Quote:

---

They are partners as the letter said. They split the profits. They share the risks of that. If the revenues goes down everybody's take goes down with it, owners and players alike.

---

No, they aren't partners. If the team loses money, does the player give money back? NO. the ONLY thing a players shares is the revenues, never the losses.

I can show you how to have a billion sales and have a loss.. Just let the costs get out of line and BOOM,, you will lose money. it's that simple.

the players want to be partners? Cool,, put up the money, buy into the league as a whole, share equally with the losses and the profits (note, I said profits, not revenue) and then I'll say they are partners. Until they are willing to do that, then they are employees. Very WELL PAID employees.

j/c

Three simple words:

College Football Sunday

Two simple words:

Replacement players

If Daman were on the field wearing the orange and brown, I would love him just as much as any other player who wore the O & B.

Employees demanding a share of revenue? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Employees in a union who expect the employers to take care of retirees and put even more money into the union for their benefits? It boggles the mind.

I'm telling you...if the NCAA gets a Sunday football TV deal...these idiots are in big trouble.

When baseball stepped on their johnsons, people did other stuff...but really had no true sports-fix alternatives.

Football season? Lots of alternatives except on Sundays. So...College Football Sunday. I hope it happens.

This:

Quote:

---

After much thought, I would have to say We all should back the Owners.

Why? I'm glad you asked

There's a parable in the bible that deals with this kinda thing, and after some thought it does make sense.

I don't know if this guy was a farmer or what he was but his story is that he went to town early in the morning to find workers for his field.

He offered a penny a day for workers and hired what he thought he would need. Come mid-morning he thought he needed more, so off to town he went.

He offered a penny a day for workers for his field, hired what he thought was needed and went back to the field. Early afternoon, He again goes to town & offers a penny a day to work in his field, each time he hires the ones willing to work. Come late afternoon, he again goes to town and offers a penny a day for workers.

Late that evening, workers come and collect their penny for the work they did.
However, some of the ones that were hired early in the morning started to question the farmer about why the ones that just started to work in the afternoon were being paid the same as they were, even though they were there all day. The farmers response was this:

What is it to you? Is it not right that I should be able to spend my money the best way that I see fit? ( Not word for word here) but you should get the picture.

In other words, It's HIS business, so shouldn't he be able to run it like he wants?

The same applies to the owners here, their the ones who hire the guys, their the ones who offer the $$$, If the workers (players) agree to work (play) for their penny, then what right do they have to complain about how the owners spend their money? It is their $$$.

---

.. " No, they aren't partners. If the team loses money, does the player give money back? NO. the ONLY thing a players shares is the revenues, never the losses...

...............................................................................................................

Thank you !

I agree. Not partners. If they really acted as such, there wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

---

Agreeable disagreement,, I kinda like that

---

Well, partners in the truest sense of the word, no.

But if not a partner, what do you call it when the "employees" take is a percentage of revenue rather than a fixed "wage" regardless of how well the business is doing?

The problem in relating it in this case is that profits never go down. So the players never lose. Nor do the owners in that regard. They've been on a steady increase since televised games to the extent that the NFL is enjoying their most profitable era since it all began. Sure, costs go up for the owners but so does their "share" of all revenues. I'm convinced that covers the increased costs. If it doesn't then they might prove that to the players and it looks to me like the players are willing to "give back" if that's the case.

You're a headhunter, do you know of any other employee whose pay goes down if revenues go down? Yeah, they might pay the new guys less by changing the pay scale, or ask existing employees to take a pay cut, but do wages go down automatically if revenue/profits go down for any employee you know?

The employer may layoff employees but the NFL, just like any other business, needs a minimum number of employees to conduct business. Actually, that's how the NFL conducts business, with a minimum set number of employees. They don't bring in extras if they have more work because it is all predetermined how many workers they need, no more, no less.

Any owner of any business is not doing his due diligence if he doesn't try to squeeze every penny out of his endeavor so for that reason I don't blame the owners at all. It's what owners do to insure the stay afloat and grow. So as I say, I don't blame them.

Nor do I blame them for not wanting to "show their books" even if they've nothing to hide. My money is not your business even if you work for me. But when the pay is a percentage and you want me to take less of a percentage then please prove to me that you are hurting now or in the foreseeable future. To keep a job I like working for someone I like I'd take a bit of a cut back myself.

But if I think you just want to buy another yacht using my money or I seriously believe you've the habit of squandering and mis-spending company money, (which in essence is my money if you want me to take a cut), then I'd likely refuse and go work somewhere else where the need my profession that I've been working on all my life. Something the players can't do. Their profession is football. They've been working at it all their lives. Where do they go?

As I said many times, I don't blame either of them. Not the owners for wanting more money, not the players for not wanting to give up money without proof of hardship from the owners.

The letter posted above to Roger Goodell from the NFLPA, which is the player association not a union and signed by a group of players, not the union, gives a strikingly different take on the offer presented by the NFL. A week or so ago the NFL painted a rosy picture of their generous offer that seems not as generous as they'd have us believe if what that letter said holds water. We'll see about that.

Still, more shall be revealed.

God I hope we don't lose games or have to start the season with very little preparation. I was really hoping for a good year.

Quote:

---

But if not a partner, what do you call it when the "employees" take is a percentage of revenue rather than a fixed "wage" regardless of how well the business is doing?

---

I call it idiotic. The owners were idiots for EVER agreeing to a deal like that..

Allowing the players to share in the profits would have been the wiser choice.

What other business can you think of where employees share in the revenue.

Sharing in the profit is fine.. or sharing in a number after certain fixed costs are deducted, That works. Sharing in Revenue, Frankly, that's insane to begin with.

It's actually about time that team owners stood up to the damn fools that are demanding that they get thier fair share of the revenues...

if the players want a fair share, FINE.. Put up some money and take the same financial risks the owners do..

<on>

Ahh,...c'mon now, the players take all of the physical risks,....

<off>

JC

IF I was the NFL I'd tell the players and the NFLPA to stick it up their back side, and that from now on, the salary structure will be seniority based. Take it or leave it.

Nice post yet I still believe the bottom line was uttered on the website profootball talk.com by an agent appropriately named "Silver" stating that the players are seeking judicial redress in hopes the NFL loses its anti trust exemption. the agents are losing the boondoggle of skyrocketing rookie contracts and are looking for the big Kahina: a MLB version of unrestricted trade and free agency where large market teams like the Yankees make the small market teams glorified farm clubs.
If that ever happens there goes pro football in terms of competitive balance. teams would develop their stars and lose them without compensation.

YTown and Petey, yes I was kidding. Hence the

Quote:

---

Is your hand permanently stuck to your face?

---

No, is your head permanently stuck up your ass?

Quote:

---

Once again you try to enforce your agenda with half truths. That figure was reduced to 325 million (split 32 ways).

---

Really? Was that the final agreement???

And what, pray tell, is my agenda anyway????

You have the agenda of searching through and studying available information in an obvious attempt to actually understand what's really going on.


Shame on you.

CBA Q&A
Professor Geoffrey Rapp



Posted Mar 15, 2011



The OBR talks NFL's labor issues with law professor Geoffrey Rapp.



Since the NFLPA and NFL owners failed to agree on a new collective barganing agreement and the NFLPA decertified March 11, fans have been left in limbo. When will this be settled? Will there be football next season? Why is there such a problem to divvy up $9 billion in revenue? Can't these millionaires and billionaires just figure it out?

For those interested in what is going on, but are confused on the tactics, The Orange and Brown Report’s forum administrator, T-Dog, reached out to a law professor. For those who are unfamiliar, T-Dog is a Browns fan with many varied interests who writes under the pseudonym of, well, ‘T-Dog’.

Geoffrey Rapp has been a professor at the University of Toledo’s College of Law since 2004. He is a 1998 graduate of Harvard College and a 2001 graduate of Yale Law School. Among the courses Rapp teaches, is Sports Law and he is an editor of the Sports Law Blog.

Rapp was kind enough to answer some questions proposed by The OBR’s T-Dog.

Q. Professor Rapp, the NFLPA has decertified, the owners have declared a lock out, and it looks like we’ve gone from negotiation, to mediation, to litigation. The first step appears to be the NFL challenging the decertification as a “sham” - what do you think of that strategy?

A. The owners' argument that decertification is a "sham" is an interesting one. There's virtually no established legal precedent out there on this issue, which may be why the owners are willing to give it a try. In other industries, unions rarely embrace decertification. Decertification typically raises concerns in three circumstances -- where multiple unions are seeking to represent the same employees (and a rival union supports a decertification drive for the recognized union), where an employer tries to "break" the union by encouraging a decertification drive, or where an employer declines to continue to negotiate with a union after learning of decertification. I am aware of no case in which a decertification initiated by employees -- which this one clearly is -- has been successfully challenged by the employers. That said, presumably what the NFL legal team will argue is that the decertification is a "sham" in the sense that the players continue to be represented by a single, unified bargaining agent. That is, that the union hasn't really gone away, but has just stopped negotiating.

Q. That would seem to preclude any sort of back channel negotiations between the decertified union and the NFL because the NFL could use any contact as evidence against the NFLPA. Is that a fair statement?

A. Very interesting point. In order to answer the NFL's argument that decertification is a sham, the union seems to have to avoid engaging in bargaining with the NFL on behalf of players. What that means is that in order to protect its argument that decertification is NOT a sham, the union can't come back to the bargaining table. By making this argument, the owners are in a way backing players into a corner, forcing them to pursue the antitrust lawsuit.

Q. What exactly is the status of a decertified union?

A. A decertified union is not really a union any more. Instead, it becomes a professional association which can facilitate cooperation among workers but not bargain with the employer. The union loses its status under federal law as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees. Where there is a certified union, management must negotiate over wages, hours, and working conditions with the union; where there is no certified union, management can (if it wishes) negotiate with individual employees.

Q. It has been reported that there is a clause in the collective bargaining agreement that says the parties agree that any decertification by the NFLPA will not be considered a sham. If that clause exists, would that make it more difficult for the NFL to argue that the court should disregard the NFLPA's decertification?

A. A CBA provision on decertification makes that argument an extremely hard one to envision the owners winning. The clause itself -- Article LVII Section 3b, prohibits the owners from making the argument that decertification was a sham in response to an antitrust lawsuit filed by players. However, the clause right before that, Section 3a, prohibits the players from bringing an antitrust suit unless the union either didn't exist at the expiration of the CBA, or for a six month period afterwards. So one possibility is that the union did in fact decertify before the expiration of the CBA, thanks the extensions the parties agreed to during the last week of negotiations. But even if the players can't point to section 3b to stop the owners' claim about decertification being a sham, the court might still conclude that the decertification was not a sham. That is, if 3b applies, the owners are dead in the water, but even if it doesn't, they still have to convince the court the decertification was a sham.

Q. Did the owners create a problem for themselves by acting in bad faith on their TV deal in terms of winning the "sham" argument on decertification? What I mean is, are the owners now vulnerable to an argument that they don't have clean hands? Or are the two issues - the NFL's bad faith on the TV deal and the argument that the NFLPA's decertification is a sham - completely separate issues?

A. Both sides have an obligation to bargain in good faith. It seems like the decertification issue is distinct from the issue of bargaining. However, to the extent the owners are asserting bad faith on the union's part in the negotiations, the fact that the owners had earlier been found to have acted in bad faith may justify the union's actions.

Q. I thought the NFL did a very effective public relations job of getting their message out to fans as the negotiations broke down. But in the intermediate term, won’t it be the players arguing in court that they are prepared to play without a contract and the lockout should end?

A. Absolutely. The players are arguing that the lockout should end and that teams should negotiate individual contracts with each player. By refusing to do, players will argue, the teams are engaging in an illegal combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade, which violates federal antitrust law. The players are in effect arguing for individual contract negotiation -- not just on the salary term, left open to individual negotiation for free agent players under the CBA, but for all terms of individual employment relationships.

Q. But, in the longer term, doesn’t the players’ legal position have a problem in terms of fan support? They will be attacking policies that most NFL fans really like - policies that result in parity and fair competition between the large and small NFL markets. Don’t the players risk becoming the bad guys if they succeed in getting rid of the draft, all restrictions on free agency, and the NFL's salary cap?

A. I can't really speculate about what fans will think some months down the line. My guess is, as long as there is NFL football this fall, fans will forgive both parties their stubbornness during negotiations. But the bottom line is that lawsuits aren't decided by what fans want, but instead based on how a judge reads the law. If the players win their lawsuit -- which I think is likely -- then the owners at the end of the day may look like the side that went too far. To be sure, restraints like the salary cap promote parity, but if NFL teams operate as competitive business entities, there might be other ways, like offering teams up for public stock ownership, for even small market teams to generate the financial resources to stay competitive on the field.

When we start talking about fan support, there are certainly some areas in which fans think player unions go too far. When unions seek to protect players who commit immoral or illegal acts, or when the unions fight aggressive performance enhancing drug testing, fans aren't likely to support the unions. But this breakdown is really about money. The question is, will fans side with millionaire players or billionaire owners? I think that the fans will eventually understand that the players, who have such short careers, deserve the share of revenues they negotiated for in the last CBA, not the share the owners are trying to leave them with today.

Q. In what areas is the NFL vulnerable to a legal attack by individual players on the way they presently operate?

A. The players can't challenge the NFL's joint marketing or TV deals. But they certainly can challenge those rules that affect compensation, hiring, drafting, etc., of employees. Any fair reading of the antitrust laws, to me, indicates that most of these restraints are unlawful in the absence of the protection provided by a CBA. The only collaboration permitted among competing businesses -- which the teams clearly are -- would be collaboration that enhances economic competition. With respect to hiring players, free agency, salary caps and the like, there is no good argument that the league's business practices do that. If players could freely negotiate their salaries, you would certainly see top players paid more than they are, and all players would enjoy freedom to negotiate more guaranteed money and also greater freedom of mobility.

Q. If the NFL goes back into operation under the terms they operated under last year - there would be no salary cap, because there was no salary cap for the 2010 season. Does that give the owners some protection from the antitrust allegations in the players' lawsuit?

A. The salary cap is just one of the issues the players can challenge in an antitrust claim. If the league tries now to impose a salary cap, players can challenge that. If instead the league does not impose a salary cap, other restrictions, like franchise status, free agency, and the draft, still remain open to a challenge by players.

Q. I have read that a case called American Needle means that each NFL team is legally a separate business. Is that true? What does that case actually say?

A. This Supreme Court case from last year established without doubt that the NFL consists of separate economic actors. Under federal antitrust law, only combinations by separate economic entities can be attacked. So if the NFL were just a single entity, it could set up whatever restraints it wants and not worry about the antitrust laws. Since the Supreme Court rejected that argument -- one that the league has tried to assert in every antitrust claim it has faced -- the league now has to argue that its restraints are "reasonable." That's a tough sell, since "reasonableness" requires that the restraints promote economic, not on-field competition.

Q. My impression is that despite all the rancor, the two sides really need each other. Isn’t a collective bargaining agreement what makes many of the business practices of the NFL legal?

A. It is because sports leagues so clearly restrain trade in athlete labor that having a union as a partner is so vital. What sports law professors and some case law refer to as the "non-statutory labor exemption" from antitrust (or the "Jewel Tea" exemption, after an early case recognizing it) protects from antitrust scrutiny player restraints that are the product of collective bargaining. Without a union and a CBA, most restraints on freedom of contract in athlete hiring would be struck down. Clearly, the NFL business model for the last four decades requires a CBA and the union as a partner. I'm not as sure that the players think they need the league. Imagine if the players set up their own professional league, using private financing. Would fans turn out for a new pro league featuring all of their favorite players, even if the team names were different? Maybe so. I don't think it will get that far, but, if the league loses its antitrust claims and doesn't want to give in to player demands, that's where players would be left.

Q. The NFL lost an important early battle involving the TV contract that they negotiated, which would have paid the owners (or maybe more accurately would have loaned the owners) about $4 billion in 2011 even if there was no football played. There would appear to be two problems with the NFL's TV deal: 1) the NFL negotiated it specifically to give them a cash infusion during the lock out; and 2) if the amount of money going to the players is based on a percentage of revenues, that $4 billion dollar loan probably wasn’t something the broadcast companies were throwing in for free. That had to reduce the amount of money the NFL earned, and thereby reduce the amount that would go to the players. What did you think of the court ruling on the TV money?

A. The CBA required the NFL to act in good faith to maximize revenues for both the NFL and players. By signing these "lockout insurance" contracts, the NFL protected itself but left players in the lurch. The judge found that the NFL failed to act in good faith. I can't really fault that ruling. The league attempted to protect itself, clearly at the expense of the players.

Q. Judge Doty is perceived as being a good judge for the players. All he had to say, the last time the same parties were in his court, was that he going to rule and someone was going to be unhappy - and the owners settled immediately to avoid having him make a decision. Are the players justifiably confident bringing their case to Judge Doty?

A. Knowing the amount of attention paid to this litigation, my guess is that any judge deciding the case will try to apply the law. Judge Doty may have sided with players in the past, but different claims will present different issues, and there's no guarantee players will win every argument in his courtroom.

Q. Judge Doty is 82 years old - could part of the NFL’s strategy be to try to delay the progress of the players’ case until he retired?

A. I'd like to think the NFL isn't this short-sighted. Another judge, applying the same law, could just as easily reach similarly player-friendly results.

Q. Many commentators seem to see one of two things happening: 1) the players and owners settle; or 2) there is no football. But, history suggests a different result here. In the early 1990s, the NFL played several years with a decertified union and no collective bargaining agreement. That ended when Judge Doty announced he was ready to rule and the parties settled. How likely is it that a similar scenario would play out this time around?

A. Most observers didn't expect things to go this far, because the NFL is such a profitable entity and not playing football would leave too much money on the table. I think there is little doubt that there will be some football next year. Even if they give in to the players, owners will still be making money, and as they get advice from their lawyers, my guess is they will realize it's time to make peace.

Q. Looking at the scenario that the owners appear to be pursuing - they win the right to continue the lockout despite the decertification of the NFLPA. What do you see at the likely resolution of the dispute if that happens?


A. Although I think that's an unlikely prospect, I suppose we could see NFL football involving replacement players and those players willing to cross the "picket line" and rejoin NFL franchises. We've probably all seen the movie "The Replacements," but I expect that the product the NFL would be able to offer without its star players isn't likely to attract significant fan support. The owners might try it, in order to get some money from TV broadcasting, but it wouldn't be a sustainable business strategy.

Q. Flip it around, the players win the decertification issue. Does the owners’ lockout have to end?

A. Realistically, yes. The owners can lock the players out indefinitely, but if they are found to have violated the antitrust laws, they will owe the players those salaries plus treble damages. If I were an owner, and I were trying to decide whether to pay players X and have them on the field or pay them three times X and not have them on the field, I'd want to make a deal.

Q. Assume the players force the NFL to continue to operate without a CBA. What risks to the owners face from the litigation brought by the players?

A. There are two sets of risks. The first is that the owners would lose. That would mean big money. The other risk is that the litigation itself would require the owners to make public many of the details of the league’s business practices and financial circumstances it has fought in the negotiations to keep secret. The players will be able to put the commissioner -- and the owners -- on the stand and ask whatever questions the judge finds relevant. Since it seems the owners have information they don't want to share, that could be embarrassing and undermine the owners' public position.

Q. Federal antitrust laws have a "triple damages" provision. How worried should the owners be about having any damages tripled?


A. I think they should be very worried. Six billion dollars is a lot of money, but eighteen billion starts to sound even more serious.

Q. When the "Plan B" free agents sued, they won a fairly substantial jury verdict. How does that case fit in with the litigation the players are bringing against the NFL now?

A. The Plan B free agents convinced a jury that the NFL's system in place at the time was more restrictive than it needed to be. That is precisely the argument that all players will make about the salary cap, franchise players, and the like, and it should give the NFL pause about the likelihood of success they will have in court.

Q. When Curt Flood sued major league baseball, he lost. The Supreme Court held that an older case gave baseball an antitrust exemption and if Congress wanted to change that ruling, they could revoke the exemption. Is there any chance that that exemption could be extended to the NFL? If not, why not?

A. I don't think that's likely. There's some debate right now about the vitality of the Curt Flood decision among legal scholars and federal judges. Today's Supreme Court -- which often looks to the original intent of legislation -- might not affirm Flood itself. But even if Flood is a binding precedent, the courts have repeatedly declined to extend baseball's so-called exemption to other professional sports. These days all sports are protected from antitrust claims primarily by the non-statutory labor exemption, which requires negotiation with a union and a CBA.

Q. Major League Baseball had collusion litigation in the late 80s, and the owners got hammered for their gentlemen's agreements to not sign free agents. Do the NFL owners face a similar problem, or was that situation unique to baseball?

A. Because of baseball's exemption from antitrust laws, these collusion cases were brought by way of labor law grievances. The players argued that the collusion among baseball owners violated collective bargaining agreements. Since the NFL does not enjoy an antitrust exemption like baseball is said to, the players in football have a more powerful argument under the antitrust laws. Plus, since the CBA is gone, the grievance process won't be available to NFL players for future collusion.

Q. Let’s say the NFL and the players wake up tomorrow and say to themselves, “what the heck have [we] done!”. And they want to settle. What would they need to do?

A. Now that the union has decertified, it would have to recertify in order to sign a new CBA. My guess is the paperwork to do that is already at the NFLPA's lawyers’ offices, so that if -- in my view, WHEN -- the owners really blink, they will be ready to return to the bargaining table.

Q. The parties didn't reach an agreement, and they are not both going to "win". In your view, which side [is] over playing its hand, players or owners?

A. The owners here have, in my view, miscalculated wildly. They seem to be blinded by greed. The question is, what kind of return is a team owner entitled to? The union has produced studies -- which the NFL thinks are based on suspicious data -- showing that even if owners claim to be losing money in a given year, they enjoy tremendous returns from the appreciation in the value of the teams they own. The owners also enjoy publicity and getting to feel like "big cheeses," something that they probably don't get from the other business ventures they've used to acquire the money to buy teams in the first place. Did anyone, for instance, care about Dan Snyder when he ran a business putting flyers up on bulletin boards in college dorms? But now he gets to sit in the owner's box in Washington with the President of the United States. I'm sure the players will be willing to give the owners something in exchange for a deal, but the owners' initial demands, unsupported by disclosure of financial information, were unreasonable. The fact that the owners reportedly came off their initial $1 billion demand by close to 90% suggests to me the owners know that they're better off with the players even under the terms of the last CBA.

Thank you Professor for giving us your insights on these complicated issues, I hope we can do this again as progress is made and new issues and questions arise.

Just clicking

Quote:

---

NFL Lockout 2011: Can (mostly rich) players learn to budget during work stoppage?
Published: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 6:16 PM Updated: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 6:56 PM
By Associated Press sports staff


MARCO ISLAND, Fla. -- Don't buy that car. Shorten that vacation. Eat at home.

Whatever they do, NFL players have been warned for years about the need to save and the importance of budgeting their money in case of a work stoppage.

Well, the lockout is here.

"We've been hammering the point home for two years that you have to be careful and you have to be prepared," Browns linebacker Scott Fujita said. "Guys I know have made concessions.

"There are always a few guys you have to be concerned about, that you think might not have taken the right steps. It's a part of the education process. Maybe you have to spoon-feed them on filling out direct deposit slips or coaching them on a change of lifestyle."

The lifestyle for pro football players, particularly the veterans, is a good one. Seahawks guard Chester Pitts, a nine-year veteran, calls it "very comfortable."

But Pitts notes it also needs to have limitations, more so when the players have no money coming in from the owners because of the labor stalemate.

"The guys in the locker room call me the cheapest guy around," Pitts said with a laugh, "but you have to be wise with your money. You can live a great life and still be careful and still be smart.

"I tell guys, `Why do you need that $250,000 car? A Mercedes is a great car and it's $85,000. You can afford that on your salary, and what's that ($250,000) car going to do for you?' "

Willie Colon didn't need that advice; he already had decided to stay out of the automotive market this offseason.

The Steelers tackle, who missed the 2010 season with a torn right Achilles' tendon, had thoughts of purchasing a new car for himself and one for his brother.

Won't happen.

"I wanted to buy a car for my brother because his car is beat up," said Colon, who earned $2.198 million last year. "But I told him this is not the year to make a lot of moves, especially with me being a (restricted) free agent and the lockout."

Colon, who is single, also said he is eating out less and being responsible with his money, something he admits wasn't always the case.

"When I was coming into the league as a rookie and I was able to get a signing bonus, I was somewhat dumb in spending it," he said. "You know, you are a kid right out of Hofstra and you come into some money. But now, my adviser will always be in my ear. They educate you on how much is important to spend and what is important not to spend it on.

"If you are wining and dining every night, try and cut back, go to the grocery store and then stay home and cook. Your lifestyle doesn't have to take a complete 180, but you need to be concerned because you never know when this lockout will end."

Panthers receiver Steve Smith sees the lockout as an opportunity for the players to learn fiscal responsibility, regardless of how much they make.

"It's not about, 'Well, I'm locked out, so now I need to save,'" said Smith, who is scheduled to make about $7 million in 2010. "It's really giving guys an opportunity to evaluate themselves and say, 'You're supposed to save anyway.' It's just an added incentive to make guys look at their financial habits and correct them and change them. I started doing that two years ago."

Fujita and Pitts are extremely involved in the NFLPA, Fujita as an executive board member and Pitts as a player rep. But there are hundreds who don't have such active roles. That rank-and-file is the segment the association's leaders must reach about their finances.

Patriots tackle Matt Light is certain they have been reached. He cites not only the togetherness of the players in New England, but of all his peers in dealing with falling on difficult financial times.

"I would be shocked if that happens to any of our guys," Light said.

But, says Pitts, it wouldn't be all that stunning for the younger players to either have not gotten the message or ignored it. That has made communicating with them so critical.

"If you're not taught how to do something, the chances you are just going to learn it without help are not very good," he said. "If a kid hasn't been taught how to (ride a bicycle), he's probably never going to do it. He's probably not going to learn on his own."

Pitts knows of players who aren't living as large as they once did, including several who told him their postseason vacations were cut in half or even shelved.

All the players have taken a bit of a financial hit already because of the lockout: NFL teams no longer are paying for their health insurance. Fujita paid $1,900 this month for coverage for his wife and two children. For bigger families, the price is around $2,400 a month.

Yes, Fujita signed a three-year, $14 million free agent contract with Cleveland a year ago, with $8 million guaranteed. He's also played nine seasons, and the league average is about one-third of that.

"We may make a lot of money, but it is for a very short time," said Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel, one of 10 players whose names are on an antritrust action against the NFL in a U.S. District Court to stop the lockout. " I have been lucky to be in this game for 14 years, to think about that is crazy.

"The average guy plays 3.4 years, and you have got to make that work."

The 1,900 or so players in the league now must plan to make the numbers work despite potentially not receiving paychecks in 2011; normally, they get paid in each of the 17 weeks of the schedule.

"My financial adviser has told me to put a little more away and to budget here and there a bit more, and I have," Colon said. "You don't want to have to find another job because you were not careful with your money and now the money isn't coming."



© 2011 cleveland.com. All rights reserved.

---

Let me get this right, Colons brothers car is in bad shape, Colon made 2.2 million last year and he won't buy his brother a car because he's locked out..

What,, He can't afford to buy his brother a Chevy Malibu for 20 grand? LOL

Yeah, these guys are just flat out, out of touch......LOL



http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-sports-blog/index.ssf/2011/03/nfl_lockout_2011_can_mostly_ri.html

Like they didn't know saving/investing was supposed to happen anyway,...I would think that part of the whole idea in making that kind of money is having the luxury to set your family up for generations after you're long gone.......

Good read and an interesting perspective from someone who's resume' seems appropriate for the subject.

Quote:

---

Like they didn't know saving/investing was supposed to happen anyway,...I would think that part of the whole idea in making that kind of money is having the luxury to set your family up for generations after you're long gone.......

---

Ever hear the fact that most people who hit the lottery for $1million quickly go broke? Just because you suddenly have money does not mean you likewise suddenly know how to manage it.

If you don't know how to manage a little then you don't know how to manage a lot.

The idea that it would never happen to us is an idea we have but then again we've never been wealthy. Money does weird things to people. The more they have the more they spend, the more they spend the more they want. It can happen to anybody, especially young men who have spent most of their lives broke.

I'd like to find another article or two just like it to see how the opinions compare.

Why do you insist on arguing with me?

My post was just an aside that money does funny things to people. Those people are no ones responsibility but their own. No one owes them anything. Not even protection from themselves.


I was just sayin'.