Well-Thought-Out CBA Negotiation Article

[CosmicBills]

You are ignoring the fact that the "60%" deal you keep referring to is gone. That "agreement" expired--it is "null and void". They are no longer partners--why do you keep pretending the 2006 CBA is in effect?

 

And why didn't the players ever ask to see the books for the past 4 seasons? How did they know "what they're owed without knowing the total revenue generated"? Why wasn't it important all these years?

 

It's null and void because the owners opted out. They chose to stop playing football in order to get a better deal for themselves. They did so without bothering to show the need for such a drastic move. Again, I'm on the fans' side here. The owners forced the work stoppage. Everyone was making more money than ever before under the most recent CBA. The players were not asking for more. There would still be a season if the players had their way. It's the owners who wanted to sacrifice games. Not the players.

 

But if you think revenue sharing is done, I think you'll be surprised to see what the NFL looks like in 2012 (or whenever the deal is struck). The owners set the precedent -- and generated record profits despite the largest economic crisis since the '40s -- there is no way the NFLPA will agree to anything BUT revenue sharing. And there's no way a federal judge will create anything but a system that is more balanced (i.e. involves revenue sharing). You just cannot apply standard employee/employer models to the NFL as much as you want to. That notion went bye bye the moment the owners agreed to a revenue sharing structure.

 

Revenue sharing is not a thing of the past.

[Hplarrm]

+1

 

 

It's null and void because the owners opted out. They chose to stop playing football in order to get a better deal for themselves. They did so without bothering to show the need for such a drastic move. Again, I'm on the fans' side here. The owners forced the work stoppage. Everyone was making more money than ever before under the most recent CBA. The players were not asking for more. There would still be a season if the players had their way. It's the owners who wanted to sacrifice games. Not the players.

 

But if you think revenue sharing is done, I think you'll be surprised to see what the NFL looks like in 2012 (or whenever the deal is struck). The owners set the precedent -- and generated record profits despite the largest economic crisis since the '40s -- there is no way the NFLPA will agree to anything BUT revenue sharing. And there's no way a federal judge will create anything but a system that is more balanced (i.e. involves revenue sharing). You just cannot apply standard employee/employer models to the NFL as much as you want to. That notion went bye bye the moment the owners agreed to a revenue sharing structure.

 

Revenue sharing is not a thing of the past.

[Ramius]

+1

 

If you kept all of your posts to this length, they'd be much more tolerable.

[Mr. WEO]

It's null and void because the owners opted out. They chose to stop playing football in order to get a better deal for themselves. They did so without bothering to show the need for such a drastic move. Again, I'm on the fans' side here. The owners forced the work stoppage. Everyone was making more money than ever before under the most recent CBA. The players were not asking for more. There would still be a season if the players had their way. It's the owners who wanted to sacrifice games. Not the players.

 

But if you think revenue sharing is done, I think you'll be surprised to see what the NFL looks like in 2012 (or whenever the deal is struck). The owners set the precedent -- and generated record profits despite the largest economic crisis since the '40s -- there is no way the NFLPA will agree to anything BUT revenue sharing. And there's no way a federal judge will create anything but a system that is more balanced (i.e. involves revenue sharing). You just cannot apply standard employee/employer models to the NFL as much as you want to. That notion went bye bye the moment the owners agreed to a revenue sharing structure.

 

Revenue sharing is not a thing of the past.

You are also apparently not aware that the 2006 CBA was to expire in 2012. It doesn't get renewed automatically. The CBA is a contract that has a finite period of existence.

 

Regardless of when or how or why the 2006 ended, the revenue sharing arrangement you pretend still exists is gone. You can't keep talking about it in the present tense. The revenue sahring model you are stuck on went "bye bye" whent the CBA ended. Right now, the NFL/players relationship is exactly that of a standard employee/employer--until there is another contract signed by both saying otherwise.

 

What was in one contract does not get placed into a new contract unless both parties agree to it--it is not a legal "precedent". A judge has not been asked to create a new CBA, so I don't know what you're referring to. But my guess is that if profit sharing is demanded by players in front of a judge, he or she may think that a "balanced" deal would expose players to "loss sharing" with their team also. The Raiders players may not be happy about "balance".

 

You can't have profit sharing unless you are willing to share financial risk. Players do not share finacial risk (physical risk is their chosen profession--for which they are already very well compensated for). Why on earth would owners agree to give up any profits if there is no agreement for the union to give back to a team that may lose money? What other company has agreed to this?

 

Edward's Arm's idea is valid. If Manning or Brady is allowed to suck up 10 or 15% of their team's cap AND make 10's of millions more a year in endorsements--why isn't that extra money availble to the owners? How can players demand a piece of the profits that the owners generate through agrresive branding and marketing, yet the players expect to do the same and keep their "profits" to thmeselves?

 

Maybe, if there is to be "balanced" revenue sharing, the owners would get 50% of the players endorsement money over a certain amount. Or the endorsement money would be deducted from the players contract/salary and he would get some of that back if there was an overall "profit" made by his team (split withh all of his teammates first, of course).

 

Fair is fair.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[boyst]

Idiots sign up for Cobra.

 

If all of this health insurance stuff is so expensive how do low end carpenters afford it? How do masons and all those people in skilled trades or self business buy insurance when they only make $25k a year?

 

That an NFL player can save up the three to four paychecks they made in the last few games and pay for Cobra shows you how much they make. These are not poor folk people, they make more money then probably 99% of everyone here even at practice squad minimums. $275k a year for a practice squad is last I knew. $375 for a rostered player. $425 for a active roster minimum. How do I afford to be self insured (NOT COBRA) when I have had less then $12k on income/savings in the last 16 months?!

[Hplarrm]

You are also apparently not aware that the 2006 CBA was to expire in 2012. It doesn't get renewed automatically. The CBA is a contract that has a finite period of existence.

 

 

 

I assume you also realize that the agreed to current CBA had a finite ending a few years from now, BUT the owners decided to trigger a re-opener which forced the contract to be renegotiated right now. To simply claim that both sides agreed to a deal where the CBA ceased to exist right now is an incomplete rendering of the truth at best).

 

Regardless of when or how or why the 2006 ended, the revenue sharing arrangement you pretend still exists is gone. You can't keep talking about it in the present tense. The revenue sahring model you are stuck on went "bye bye" whent the CBA ended. Right now, the NFL/players relationship is exactly that of a standard employee/employer--until there is another contract signed by both saying otherwise.

 

 

Right now the NFL/NFLPA relationship is one governed by past reality within the context of US Labor Law. It seem far more radical and counter to reality to try to pretend that the past revenue sharing agreement i null and void and one should act like it never happened. It clearly is not the current contractual arrangement but it did happen and reality is going to relevant to what happens in the future. The current owner/player relationship is based on its own reality and this relationship has far more in common with traditional entertainment contractor relationships than it does with traditional employer/employee relationship as one would find in a steel or auto plant'

 

 

What was in one contract does not get placed into a new contract unless both parties agree to it--it is not a legal "precedent". A judge has not been asked to create a new CBA, so I don't know what you're referring to. But my guess is that if profit sharing is demanded by players in front of a judge, he or she may think that a "balanced" deal would expose players to "loss sharing" with their team also. The Raiders players may not be happy about "balance".

 

You can't have profit sharing unless you are willing to share financial risk. Players do not share finacial risk (physical risk is their chosen profession--for which they are already very well compensated for). Why on earth would owners agree to give up any profits if there is no agreement for the union to give back to a team that may lose money? What other company has agreed to this?

 

This view is also incorrect as it is certainly possible for the team owners and the players to have any relationship they both agree to have. They can choose to divide up profit and risk anyway they want to. In general the owners were willing in the last two CBAs to first divide to the players advantage a designated portion of the gross and then divide the entire gross the last time rather than actually compete in a free market for players talent. The decert threat put the team owners over a barrel in that even though the players offer not only delivered the players a vastly larger % of the total take, it assured labor peace such that the actual cash source, the TV nets were willing to give the owners higher profits than they would get in a combative owner/employee relationship.

 

Edward's Arm's idea is valid. If Manning or Brady is allowed to suck up 10 or 15% of their team's cap AND make 10's of millions more a year in endorsements--why isn't that extra money availble to the owners? How can players demand a piece of the profits that the owners generate through agrresive branding and marketing, yet the players expect to do the same and keep their "profits" to thmeselves?

 

 

I do not think it is valid at all as he is comparing apples and oranges. The NFLPA is not demanding at all for team owners like Mr. Ralph to account for profits which they make from the NFL. In fact it would be stupid for their goals to get deluged with team owner personal spending habit data. You may have a prurient interest in how Steve Johnson spends his personal cash but this has nothing to do with the contractual issues at hand. So Edwards Arm's proposal is invalid as it misses the point.

 

What the players want is access to the team books to measure the profit loss statements which is a very different thing than an individuals spending habits.

 

 

 

Maybe, if there is to be "balanced" revenue sharing, the owners would get 50% of the players endorsement money over a certain amount. Or the endorsement money would be deducted from the players contract/salary and he would get some of that back if there was an overall "profit" made by his team (split withh all of his teammates first, of course).

 

Fair is fair.

 

An understanding of what is fair or not fair about this is that the team owners were essential to the process of creating the NFL as they were willing to take the risk and provide capital, and manage the product when the NFL started.

 

However, now they are simply a middle man who really adds to the cost of producing the product which in fact can be replaced by numerous sources of capital.

 

The NFLPA however seems to recognize that it does not serve their interest to kill the current owners. They actually maximize the money they would get by fostering competition and creating a parallel NEWFL with the teams following the successful Packer model.

 

The team owners are simply redundant now from my perspective or do you have the hots for or some entertainment fro, Jerry Jones. Snyder or Mr. Ralph?

[K Gun Special]

Idiots sign up for Cobra.

 

If all of this health insurance stuff is so expensive how do low end carpenters afford it? How do masons and all those people in skilled trades or self business buy insurance when they only make $25k a year?

 

That an NFL player can save up the three to four paychecks they made in the last few games and pay for Cobra shows you how much they make. These are not poor folk people, they make more money then probably 99% of everyone here even at practice squad minimums. $275k a year for a practice squad is last I knew. $375 for a rostered player. $425 for a active roster minimum. How do I afford to be self insured (NOT COBRA) when I have had less then $12k on income/savings in the last 16 months?!

 

 

Practice squad guys usually dont even hit 100k. where do you get your information ???

 

and the active roster minimum is around $320k for rookies.

 

and again you are not a professional athlete, for an athlete to obtain coverage, it is going to cost a lot more than it does for you or a low end carpenter..... btw a lot of the trade workers get group coverage thru unions or local trade associations.

[Hplarrm]

Practice squad guys usually dont even hit 100k. where do you get your information ???

 

and the active roster minimum is around $320k for rookies.

 

and again you are not a professional athlete, for an athlete to obtain coverage, it is going to cost a lot more than it does for you or a low end carpenter..... btw a lot of the trade workers get group coverage thru unions or local trade associations.

Agreed. The only general rule for healthcare (or more accurately labeled illness care in the US) is that there are no general rules.

 

Every individual case is an individual case that is placed in some broader category (where in theory there is equal treatment of those in the same category)but when it gets down to comparing what happens by rule to one individual may be completely different than what happens to another individual.

 

In American society if you are with and/or well to do then you can get a whole bunch of stuff in terms of illness care but on the other hand if you are not well to do and/or unable to manipulate the system AND you are ill you get screwed.

 

NFL players actually are a great oddity since generally (by US standards even PS players make above the norm particularly when one considers you 50K is for part time work, food is regularly thrown at you, and from what the couple of friends of mine who have led the NFL life tell me you do not have to pay for a drink if you do want to) they make well above the norm.

 

However, they often are sheep who have been coddled most of their lives and told when to eat, when to sleep, and what to do every waking moment. There is a talented tenth who tend to lead the other players but for the most part the big health care advantage they have is that they are young and physically fit.

 

However, on the third hand, they have ridiculous illness care demands as they subject their bodies to high impact blows all the time.

 

The bottomline is that comparing them to some alleged norm of health care for a journeyman carpenter really has little to do with the real world.

[Casey D]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The theory of the players case is simple-- maybe not right, but simple.

 

First, there is a union/labor exemption to the antitrust laws. For purposes here, while there is a union, there can be no antitrust claims due to the exemption. So decertification, if valid, eliminates the exemption and opens the path to litigation.

 

 

In litigation, the players' theory is that each NFL team is an independent competitor, competing for the services of labor, i.e., the players. No different than if you are an employee in the high tech area, each company is competing for your services with pay and benefit packages. Those competitors cannot collude i.e., agree, with each other on what they will pay employees as it eliminates competition and drives down employees' compensation. The same applies here. Each team arguably would have to compete for each and every player. No draft "allocatin" players(the only reason there can be a draft this year is that it was grandfathered in in the old CBA), no caps, no nothing. More or less a free for all. That is the players' position and certainly result in much higher salries and benefits for some players.

 

The owners have a number of arguments against this. The first trench is that the decertification is a sham so the exemption is still in place. One problem with this for the owners is that in an old CBA(early 1990s) they agreed never to challenge decertification as a sham again. That agreement may not be valid as against public policy--I am not expert on that. If they win on the sham thing, they are in good shape.

 

But even if the labor exemption does not apply-- i.e., no sham is found or the owners waived the right to raise it-- the owners are not devoid of arguments. They will argue the players' position is simplistic and wrong because the NFL is not comprised of 32 individual competitors in an economic sense, but is a joint venture where the well-being of each team is in the other teams' interest in order to have a viable product to sell to fans. Thus you need agreements and rules amongst the teams to ensure competitive balance so the games are entertaining. With a free for all, you might end up with a handful of Harlem Globetrotters and most everyone a Washington General--no chance to compete. If that happens, fan interest falls, the league ultimately collapses.

 

The owners' basic point about needing rules etc, to make the league work is undeniably true--this is a joint venture and it is not the same as say car manufacturers competing.. So the true antitrust issue, setting aside the exemption, is what agreements are needed to have a competitive league and a good product, and which agreements restraining competition on bidding for players go too far. This is evaluated under something called the "rule of reason" where the competitive benefits, i.e, creating a good entertaining product, is balanced against the players' right under the antirust laws to have unfettered bidding for their services. What is reasonable and unreasonable in these circumstances will not be clear cut, it gives lots of room for judges and juries to interpret.

 

Here, Judge Doty is not a great judge for the owners. He tends to see things more the players way if the past is an indicator. To be sure he is held accoutable by appellate courts-- the 8th Circuit and Supreme Court-- but that will be a long an difficult slog for the owners. And I don't know if the owners with big new stadiums can afford the debt service on their stadiums without a season. Doty's earlier ruling that the TV deal that paid them this year violated the players' rights under the CBA is certainly not helping on this point.

 

So the players knew exactly what they were doing when they decertified. My view(and the players too I am sure) is that in court--at least with this judge-- there will be lots of rulings that pressure the owners to settle--but that's just my view as it is hard to predict how a judge will see things. If the owners can hold out long term, they may be OK when the comptitive rules are evaluated fully by multiple courts, but my bet is they can't take that much time and that you will see a settlement where the players come out better than the owners--likely in late Spring or Summer.

 

Hope that helps.. CD

[Mr. WEO]

I assume you also realize that the agreed to current CBA had a finite ending a few years from now, BUT the owners decided to trigger a re-opener which forced the contract to be renegotiated right now. To simply claim that both sides agreed to a deal where the CBA ceased to exist right now is an incomplete rendering of the truth at best).

 

 

 

Right now the NFL/NFLPA relationship is one governed by past reality within the context of US Labor Law. It seem far more radical and counter to reality to try to pretend that the past revenue sharing agreement i null and void and one should act like it never happened. It clearly is not the current contractual arrangement but it did happen and reality is going to relevant to what happens in the future. The current owner/player relationship is based on its own reality and this relationship has far more in common with traditional entertainment contractor relationships than it does with traditional employer/employee relationship as one would find in a steel or auto plant'

 

 

 

This view is also incorrect as it is certainly possible for the team owners and the players to have any relationship they both agree to have. They can choose to divide up profit and risk anyway they want to. In general the owners were willing in the last two CBAs to first divide to the players advantage a designated portion of the gross and then divide the entire gross the last time rather than actually compete in a free market for players talent. The decert threat put the team owners over a barrel in that even though the players offer not only delivered the players a vastly larger % of the total take, it assured labor peace such that the actual cash source, the TV nets were willing to give the owners higher profits than they would get in a combative owner/employee relationship.

 

 

 

I do not think it is valid at all as he is comparing apples and oranges. The NFLPA is not demanding at all for team owners like Mr. Ralph to account for profits which they make from the NFL. In fact it would be stupid for their goals to get deluged with team owner personal spending habit data. You may have a prurient interest in how Steve Johnson spends his personal cash but this has nothing to do with the contractual issues at hand. So Edwards Arm's proposal is invalid as it misses the point.

 

What the players want is access to the team books to measure the profit loss statements which is a very different thing than an individuals spending habits.

 

 

 

 

An understanding of what is fair or not fair about this is that the team owners were essential to the process of creating the NFL as they were willing to take the risk and provide capital, and manage the product when the NFL started.

 

However, now they are simply a middle man who really adds to the cost of producing the product which in fact can be replaced by numerous sources of capital.

 

The NFLPA however seems to recognize that it does not serve their interest to kill the current owners. They actually maximize the money they would get by fostering competition and creating a parallel NEWFL with the teams following the successful Packer model.

 

The team owners are simply redundant now from my perspective or do you have the hots for or some entertainment fro, Jerry Jones. Snyder or Mr. Ralph?

Teasing through all the meat byproduct in your posts is usually a task I avoid. But as for the bolded part--this is exactly what the union is demanding. All accounts of all profits made in the NFL. They also want an account of all expenses--including any family memebers on the payroll, what they are paid and what their rolls are.

 

Also, I the year was now 2012 and the CBA had naturally expired, we would be in the same position as we are now, so the "op out" has no specific impact. And profit sharing may be part of the next CBA but there is no "US Labor law" compelling it to be.

[Hplarrm]

The theory of the players case is simple-- maybe not right, but simple.

 

First, there is a union/labor exemption to the antitrust laws. For purposes here, while there is a union, there can be no antitrust claims due to the exemption. So decertification, if valid, eliminates the exemption and opens the path to litigation.

 

 

In litigation, the players' theory is that each NFL team is an independent competitor, competing for the services of labor, i.e., the players. No different than if you are an employee in the high tech area, each company is competing for your services with pay and benefit packages. Those competitors cannot collude i.e., agree, with each other on what they will pay employees as it eliminates competition and drives down employees' compensation. The same applies here. Each team arguably would have to compete for each and every player. No draft "allocatin" players(the only reason there can be a draft this year is that it was grandfathered in in the old CBA), no caps, no nothing. More or less a free for all. That is the players' position and certainly result in much higher salries and benefits for some players.

 

The owners have a number of arguments against this. The first trench is that the decertification is a sham so the exemption is still in place. One problem with this for the owners is that in an old CBA(early 1990s) they agreed never to challenge decertification as a sham again. That agreement may not be valid as against public policy--I am not expert on that. If they win on the sham thing, they are in good shape.

 

But even if the labor exemption does not apply-- i.e., no sham is found or the owners waived the right to raise it-- the owners are not devoid of arguments. They will argue the players' position is simplistic and wrong because the NFL is not comprised of 32 individual competitors in an economic sense, but is a joint venture where the well-being of each team is in the other teams' interest in order to have a viable product to sell to fans. Thus you need agreements and rules amongst the teams to ensure competitive balance so the games are entertaining. With a free for all, you might end up with a handful of Harlem Globetrotters and most everyone a Washington General--no chance to compete. If that happens, fan interest falls, the league ultimately collapses.

 

The owners' basic point about needing rules etc, to make the league work is undeniably true--this is a joint venture and it is not the same as say car manufacturers competing.. So the true antitrust issue, setting aside the exemption, is what agreements are needed to have a competitive league and a good product, and which agreements restraining competition on bidding for players go too far. This is evaluated under something called the "rule of reason" where the competitive benefits, i.e, creating a good entertaining product, is balanced against the players' right under the antirust laws to have unfettered bidding for their services. What is reasonable and unreasonable in these circumstances will not be clear cut, it gives lots of room for judges and juries to interpret.

 

Here, Judge Doty is not a great judge for the owners. He tends to see things more the players way if the past is an indicator. To be sure he is held accoutable by appellate courts-- the 8th Circuit and Supreme Court-- but that will be a long an difficult slog for the owners. And I don't know if the owners with big new stadiums can afford the debt service on their stadiums without a season. Doty's earlier ruling that the TV deal that paid them this year violated the players' rights under the CBA is certainly not helping on this point.

 

So the players knew exactly what they were doing when they decertified. My view(and the players too I am sure) is that in court--at least with this judge-- there will be lots of rulings that pressure the owners to settle--but that's just my view as it is hard to predict how a judge will see things. If the owners can hold out long term, they may be OK when the comptitive rules are evaluated fully by multiple courts, but my bet is they can't take that much time and that you will see a settlement where the players come out better than the owners--likely in late Spring or Summer.

 

Hope that helps.. CD

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks

[CosmicBills]

Idiots sign up for Cobra.

 

If all of this health insurance stuff is so expensive how do low end carpenters afford it? How do masons and all those people in skilled trades or self business buy insurance when they only make $25k a year?

 

That an NFL player can save up the three to four paychecks they made in the last few games and pay for Cobra shows you how much they make. These are not poor folk people, they make more money then probably 99% of everyone here even at practice squad minimums. $275k a year for a practice squad is last I knew. $375 for a rostered player. $425 for a active roster minimum. How do I afford to be self insured (NOT COBRA) when I have had less then $12k on income/savings in the last 16 months?!

Again, you're making blanket statements that are just really naive and unfounded. I don't think you understand how expensive health care is in this country. It's a racket, and if you ask me, evil. But we'll leave that discussion for another day.

 

The fact is you cannot compare your rates to someone else without knowing their needs. You say you keep in good shape, that's admirable. But somehow I'd be willing to bet that the men in the NFL, overall, are in far better shape than you. But their care is going to be more expensive. Why? Because of how risky their profession is. The insurance companies exist to make money. They are not charities. When they have clients that have riskier lifestyles, they sure as hell are going to charge more.

 

These men work in a profession that taxes their bodies in ways your profession doesn't. Thus, these men are more apt to need medical care whether it be from injuries, surgeries or long term care after their careers are done when the arthritis and dementia from reoccurring head injuries kick in. There's a reason the average NFL career lasts under 4 years. There's also a reason why if you log 10 years in the league in the trenches your lifespan decreases to about 55. It's a brutal sport. Thus their BASIC package is going to be much more inclusive (and expensive) than yours in most cases because the insurance companies know the risks associated with covering these athletes.

 

That's not even factoring in the personal matters that people, including rich professional athletes, have to deal with. Like I said with Derek Fisher, his daughter got diagnosed with cancer. The expense for her care without insurance would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars -- if not millions. Even though he's an NBA player, that sort of cost could have crippled him financially just as easily as health care costs can cripple your average Joe -- which happens every day in this country. But you want to label Fisher and those average people who struggle with massive health care debts as idiots because they should have known better? I'm sure there are dozens of similar stories you have never heard about in the NFL because these are people. People with lives and families and just like anyone else they have health issues they cannot control. There is nothing more expensive in this country than fighting a lengthy illness or injury.

 

You can keep beating the "they're rich!" drum all you want, but it's relative my friend. I'm trying to help you out here because so far in your posts on this topic you are coming off as a bitter, ignorant ass. Which, you may be, but I'd like to think you're not.

[CosmicBills]

The theory of the players case is simple-- maybe not right, but simple.

 

First, there is a union/labor exemption to the antitrust laws. For purposes here, while there is a union, there can be no antitrust claims due to the exemption. So decertification, if valid, eliminates the exemption and opens the path to litigation.

 

 

In litigation, the players' theory is that each NFL team is an independent competitor, competing for the services of labor, i.e., the players. No different than if you are an employee in the high tech area, each company is competing for your services with pay and benefit packages. Those competitors cannot collude i.e., agree, with each other on what they will pay employees as it eliminates competition and drives down employees' compensation. The same applies here. Each team arguably would have to compete for each and every player. No draft "allocatin" players(the only reason there can be a draft this year is that it was grandfathered in in the old CBA), no caps, no nothing. More or less a free for all. That is the players' position and certainly result in much higher salries and benefits for some players.

 

The owners have a number of arguments against this. The first trench is that the decertification is a sham so the exemption is still in place. One problem with this for the owners is that in an old CBA(early 1990s) they agreed never to challenge decertification as a sham again. That agreement may not be valid as against public policy--I am not expert on that. If they win on the sham thing, they are in good shape.

 

But even if the labor exemption does not apply-- i.e., no sham is found or the owners waived the right to raise it-- the owners are not devoid of arguments. They will argue the players' position is simplistic and wrong because the NFL is not comprised of 32 individual competitors in an economic sense, but is a joint venture where the well-being of each team is in the other teams' interest in order to have a viable product to sell to fans. Thus you need agreements and rules amongst the teams to ensure competitive balance so the games are entertaining. With a free for all, you might end up with a handful of Harlem Globetrotters and most everyone a Washington General--no chance to compete. If that happens, fan interest falls, the league ultimately collapses.

 

The owners' basic point about needing rules etc, to make the league work is undeniably true--this is a joint venture and it is not the same as say car manufacturers competing.. So the true antitrust issue, setting aside the exemption, is what agreements are needed to have a competitive league and a good product, and which agreements restraining competition on bidding for players go too far. This is evaluated under something called the "rule of reason" where the competitive benefits, i.e, creating a good entertaining product, is balanced against the players' right under the antirust laws to have unfettered bidding for their services. What is reasonable and unreasonable in these circumstances will not be clear cut, it gives lots of room for judges and juries to interpret.

Here, Judge Doty is not a great judge for the owners. He tends to see things more the players way if the past is an indicator. To be sure he is held accoutable by appellate courts-- the 8th Circuit and Supreme Court-- but that will be a long an difficult slog for the owners. And I don't know if the owners with big new stadiums can afford the debt service on their stadiums without a season. Doty's earlier ruling that the TV deal that paid them this year violated the players' rights under the CBA is certainly not helping on this point.

 

So the players knew exactly what they were doing when they decertified. My view(and the players too I am sure) is that in court--at least with this judge-- there will be lots of rulings that pressure the owners to settle--but that's just my view as it is hard to predict how a judge will see things. If the owners can hold out long term, they may be OK when the comptitive rules are evaluated fully by multiple courts, but my bet is they can't take that much time and that you will see a settlement where the players come out better than the owners--likely in late Spring or Summer.

 

Hope that helps.. CD

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

 

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

 

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

[CosmicBills]

 

 

Also, I the year was now 2012 and the CBA had naturally expired, we would be in the same position as we are now, so the "op out" has no specific impact. And profit sharing may be part of the next CBA but there is no "US Labor law" compelling it to be.

That's a very simplistic point of view, not to mention false. First of all, if the deal had been allowed to run its course that would have given the players and owners an extra year to negotiate an extension or a new deal. Which means for us fans we'd have a better chance of NOT missing a game let alone a season.

 

I don't care about the finer points of the deal, I care about being able to see football games on Sunday. And what pisses me off is there was no reason for the owners to force a work stoppage at this time. If they were the NBA I'd understand (that league has serious financial issues and I believe needs a lockout to SAVE the league). If that were the case with the NFL you better believe I'd be singing a different tune. But it isn't. This league is a giant and is printing its own currency. The only reason the owners are doing this is because they got greedy. If they waited till 2012 they'd lose a lot of the leverage they assumed they had coming into this lockout (mainly the TV money which they already lost). This was a calculated move by the owners to get the upper hand.

 

They think that they can get away with it and there won't be fallout from the fans because football is king in this country. To me that is arrogant. As a fan that is a slap in the face. We are the reason they have a league. They are making record breaking profits -- but that's not good enough for them.

 

Apparently it is for you.

 

Let's just cut to the chase here, WEO. What would you rather have happen:

 

1. A deal where the players get everything they're asking for AND a full 2011 season

or

2. A new deal where the owners get everything they're asking for but NO games in 2011

 

Answer honestly.

[boyst]

Again, you're making blanket statements that are just really naive and unfounded. I don't think you understand how expensive health care is in this country. It's a racket, and if you ask me, evil. But we'll leave that discussion for another day.

 

The fact is you cannot compare your rates to someone else without knowing their needs. You say you keep in good shape, that's admirable. But somehow I'd be willing to bet that the men in the NFL, overall, are in far better shape than you. But their care is going to be more expensive. Why? Because of how risky their profession is. The insurance companies exist to make money. They are not charities. When they have clients that have riskier lifestyles, they sure as hell are going to charge more.

 

These men work in a profession that taxes their bodies in ways your profession doesn't. Thus, these men are more apt to need medical care whether it be from injuries, surgeries or long term care after their careers are done when the arthritis and dementia from reoccurring head injuries kick in. There's a reason the average NFL career lasts under 4 years. There's also a reason why if you log 10 years in the league in the trenches your lifespan decreases to about 55. It's a brutal sport. Thus their BASIC package is going to be much more inclusive (and expensive) than yours in most cases because the insurance companies know the risks associated with covering these athletes.

 

That's not even factoring in the personal matters that people, including rich professional athletes, have to deal with. Like I said with Derek Fisher, his daughter got diagnosed with cancer. The expense for her care without insurance would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars -- if not millions. Even though he's an NBA player, that sort of cost could have crippled him financially just as easily as health care costs can cripple your average Joe -- which happens every day in this country. But you want to label Fisher and those average people who struggle with massive health care debts as idiots because they should have known better? I'm sure there are dozens of similar stories you have never heard about in the NFL because these are people. People with lives and families and just like anyone else they have health issues they cannot control. There is nothing more expensive in this country than fighting a lengthy illness or injury.

 

You can keep beating the "they're rich!" drum all you want, but it's relative my friend. I'm trying to help you out here because so far in your posts on this topic you are coming off as a bitter, ignorant ass. Which, you may be, but I'd like to think you're not.

I am definately an ass, partially ignorant...but not bitter.

 

I am not beating the drum that they are rich. I am beating the drum that they have more income then most to rely upon when situations like this are foreseeable. Unfortunately, the players did not take time to consider this as well as they should. As part of having a family people need to take the time to plan out just what they can afford. And while I understand they are responsible for their decisions to play the game thus their lifespan is cut short - I think it is a fair trade off that they receive a high salary. I do not think I am being bitter but I am disappointed at the lack of responsibility shown by these athletes to protect themselves.

[Taro T]

That's a very simplistic point of view, not to mention false. First of all, if the deal had been allowed to run its course that would have given the players and owners an extra year to negotiate an extension or a new deal. Which means for us fans we'd have a better chance of NOT missing a game let alone a season.

 

I don't care about the finer points of the deal, I care about being able to see football games on Sunday. And what pisses me off is there was no reason for the owners to force a work stoppage at this time. If they were the NBA I'd understand (that league has serious financial issues and I believe needs a lockout to SAVE the league). If that were the case with the NFL you better believe I'd be singing a different tune. But it isn't. This league is a giant and is printing its own currency. The only reason the owners are doing this is because they got greedy. If they waited till 2012 they'd lose a lot of the leverage they assumed they had coming into this lockout (mainly the TV money which they already lost). This was a calculated move by the owners to get the upper hand.

 

They think that they can get away with it and there won't be fallout from the fans because football is king in this country. To me that is arrogant. As a fan that is a slap in the face. We are the reason they have a league. They are making record breaking profits -- but that's not good enough for them.

 

Apparently it is for you.

 

Let's just cut to the chase here, WEO. What would you rather have happen:

 

1. A deal where the players get everything they're asking for AND a full 2011 season

or

2. A new deal where the owners get everything they're asking for but NO games in 2011

 

Answer honestly.

That's technically true, but in reality no negotiations would have taken place until January/February '12 if the deal ran into March '12. Neither side would have felt the urgency to get the deal in place and both would have thought that showing up w/ a legitimate 'fair' offer would be showing weakness - which would have caused the other side to dig its heels in further. ('Hey, if they're already here, just imagine where they'll be in February when the rubber starts to hit the road. We're winning!')

 

And there was a reason for the owners to lock the players out now - it improves their leverage as the players haven't gotten any money for '11 yet and face the possibility of a full year without a paycheck. Just like a strike late in the season would benefit the players as the owners would lose all their playoff money and the players would have already received most of their salary for the year.

[Mr. WEO]

That's a very simplistic point of view, not to mention false. First of all, if the deal had been allowed to run its course that would have given the players and owners an extra year to negotiate an extension or a new deal. Which means for us fans we'd have a better chance of NOT missing a game let alone a season.

 

I don't care about the finer points of the deal, I care about being able to see football games on Sunday. And what pisses me off is there was no reason for the owners to force a work stoppage at this time. If they were the NBA I'd understand (that league has serious financial issues and I believe needs a lockout to SAVE the league). If that were the case with the NFL you better believe I'd be singing a different tune. But it isn't. This league is a giant and is printing its own currency. The only reason the owners are doing this is because they got greedy. If they waited till 2012 they'd lose a lot of the leverage they assumed they had coming into this lockout (mainly the TV money which they already lost). This was a calculated move by the owners to get the upper hand.

 

They think that they can get away with it and there won't be fallout from the fans because football is king in this country. To me that is arrogant. As a fan that is a slap in the face. We are the reason they have a league. They are making record breaking profits -- but that's not good enough for them.

 

Apparently it is for you.

 

Let's just cut to the chase here, WEO. What would you rather have happen:

 

1. A deal where the players get everything they're asking for AND a full 2011 season

or

2. A new deal where the owners get everything they're asking for but NO games in 2011

 

Answer honestly.

The owners announced to the world that they were going to execise their option to end the CBA in 2011 instead of 2012 on May 20th, 2008. That gave all parties nearly 3 years to negotiate a new agreement. Either you didn't know this, or you are now claiming that they needed 4 years to come to a deal. I'll be kind and assume you just didn't know.

 

Anyway, there was plenty of time to come to an agreement--even an extra 2 weeks as the deadline was twice extended. The NFL's offer (use should look it up) promised the players more money than ever--including the exact amount they wanted within 3 years. The owners didn't "force a work stoppage". The union rejected their last and best offer, then pretended to disband by decertifying. You keep going on and on saying the owners didn't want games played this year--this is insane. The last offer by the owners (immediately rejected by the players) was FAR from "everything the owners were asking for". You simply don't know this stuff that you are trying to comment on.

 

How can you even mention a deal where one side gets "everything they are asking for"? It's impossible, isn't it? There's no such "deal".

 

Your view of this topic is below simplistic.

[CosmicBills]

The owners announced to the world that they were going to execise their option to end the CBA in 2011 instead of 2012 on May 20th, 2008. That gave all parties nearly 3 years to negotiate a new agreement. Either you didn't know this, or you are now claiming that they needed 4 years to come to a deal. I'll be kind and assume you just didn't know.

 

Anyway, there was plenty of time to come to an agreement--even an extra 2 weeks as the deadline was twice extended. The NFL's offer (use should look it up) promised the players more money than ever--including the exact amount they wanted within 3 years. The owners didn't "force a work stoppage". The union rejected their last and best offer, then pretended to disband by decertifying. You keep going on and on saying the owners didn't want games played this year--this is insane. The last offer by the owners (immediately rejected by the players) was FAR from "everything the owners were asking for". You simply don't know this stuff that you are trying to comment on.

 

How can you even mention a deal where one side gets "everything they are asking for"? It's impossible, isn't it? There's no such "deal".

 

Your view of this topic is below simplistic.

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

[Fixxxer]

With "partners" like these who needs enemies......

 

League continues to bask in its bad deal from 2006

Posted by Mike Florio on March 23, 2011, 2:22 PM EDT

 

How badly does the NFL want the players to do what many of them think will be a bad deal?

 

Badly enough to brag about the bad deal the NFL did in 2006.

 

After embracing comments from men like Kevin Mawae and Kurt Warner regarding the value to the players of the contract negotiated in 2006, the NFL has now wrapped its arms around the heavily tatted torso of Dolphins lineman Richie Incognito.

 

At NFLLabor.com (apparently, ProFootballPropaganda.com was taken), the league trumpets comments from Incognito regarding the recently-expired labor contract.

 

“We kicked their butts in the last negotiation so we’re not going to settle,” Incognito said in quotes given to ESPN.com and copied at NFLLabor.com. “This is our livelihood and as players we’re united. We’re sticking together 100 percent.”

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/23/league-continues-to-bask-in-its-bad-deal-from-2006/

 

From the comments section:

"There was a clause put in the 06 agreement stating if the agreement wasn’t working out for either side, then they can opt out. So the owners are opting out. They put that clause in there for a reason. That’s like you make an agreement with your boss to get paid a certain commission, your not too sure it’s the right thing to do so ur boss says, we will do it for a few years and if its not working for you, you can opt out and we will do a new agreement. Then you opt out and now you are a slave driver?

 

the players are just being greedy at this point. they deserve to be paid well but i think they are getting greedy"

[Ramius]

Apparently it is for you.

 

Let's just cut to the chase here, WEO. What would you rather have happen:

 

1. A deal where the players get everything they're asking for AND a full 2011 season

or

2. A new deal where the owners get everything they're asking for but NO games in 2011

 

Answer honestly.

 

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