NFL Coaches come out of the closet

[Mickey]

The NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the players

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791315.0.pdf

[shoretalk]

The NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the players

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791315.0.pdf

Thanks for providing this ...

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Such a strange dynamic at work.

 

The coaches are still employed and working directly for the teams… although many of them have taken pay cuts. While they are an association, they are not unionized and the coaches are certainly being hurt by this work stoppage. Only head coaches typically have guaranteed contracts so the vast majority of NFL coaches have very little security even in the best of times. I think the day when they form a union is not far off.

 

Like I said, its odd that the coaches are siding with the players, even as they continue to work for the owners. For the coaches own welfare, it makes sense of course, but it's also symbolically an act of defiance against the owners.

[Scrappy]

Cue the "take this job & shove it" background music.

[Buftex]

Such a strange dynamic at work.

 

The coaches are still employed and working directly for the teams… although many of them have taken pay cuts. While they are an association, they are not unionized and the coaches are certainly being hurt by this work stoppage. Only head coaches typically have guaranteed contracts so the vast majority of NFL coaches have very little security even in the best of times. I think the day when they form a union is not far off.

 

Like I said, its odd that the coaches are siding with the players, even as they continue to work for the owners. For the coaches own welfare, it makes sense of course, but it's also symbolically an act of defiance against the owners.

 

 

The coaches (especially Bills coaches) are getting screwed, because of the owners...they should back the players...but, yes, you are right, it is strange.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Cue the "take this job & shove it" background music.

If you insist ....

 

Edited May 26, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Hplarrm]

Anyone notice the prof who wrote this is named Barak?

 

Stranger meaningless coincidences have happened such as the Pre having the middle name and idiots make a big deal about it.

 

However, I tend to believe less and less of anything appearing on the web and would love objective confirmation of all of this.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Anyone notice the prof who wrote this is named Barak?

 

Stranger meaningless coincidences have happened such as the Pre having the middle name and idiots make a big deal about it.

 

However, I tend to believe less and less of anything appearing on the web and would love objective confirmation of all of this.

http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/richman/

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/25/nfl-coaches-association-files-legal-brief-in-support-of-players/

 

 

[Mickey]

Thanks for providing this ...

 

 

all the briefs, motions and orders are available at that same site. If you ever wanted to become an expert on labor law, now is your chance

[Mickey]

Such a strange dynamic at work.

 

The coaches are still employed and working directly for the teams… although many of them have taken pay cuts. While they are an association, they are not unionized and the coaches are certainly being hurt by this work stoppage. Only head coaches typically have guaranteed contracts so the vast majority of NFL coaches have very little security even in the best of times. I think the day when they form a union is not far off.

 

Like I said, its odd that the coaches are siding with the players, even as they continue to work for the owners. For the coaches own welfare, it makes sense of course, but it's also symbolically an act of defiance against the owners.

I am not all that sure they are getting paid during the lockout. If the injunction by Judge Nelson were to be upheld, everything would be back to normal the next day and its easy to see why coaches would want that to happen. An amicus brief isn't exactly the most persuasive thing in the world, sort of like saying, "what he said". But it has some symbolic value.

 

I have a sinking feeling that we are going to lose some of this season, maybe not all of it but two or three games at least. Damn the 8th circuit. I still don't get it. How long does a union have to not be a union before its not a union any more?

[SouthernMan]

I'm still baffled over the players demands.

 

Why are they collectively asking for more money when contracts are negotiated individually?

 

They want better healthcare benefits when playing days are over? Why? Thy're fortunate to have any at all. The companies I used to work for no longer provide any benefits to me? Keep in mind that the few large corporations or union run companies that do offer post-employment benefits don't expect the beneficiaries to live (and collect benefits) for another 50-60 years. What other industry is responsible to it's employees for 50-60 years of benefits after only 4-5 years of service?

 

The players have extremely generous salaries as compared to the average American worker in their 20's and 30's. They can't sock away a little of that income for better healthcare insurance in the future?

 

Finally, if revenue sharing is the main point of contention, why don't owners just stop agreeing to those contracts. They're the ones setting the bar and forever getting into pissing contests that escalate salaries.

 

All that said, I do wish they would come to a reasonable rookie cap. Giving oodles of money to players who haven't proven a thing seems frivolous and stealing from those who've already made the grade. They should have to endure a complete NFL season and let the teams assess their progress as legitimate NFL producers after one year. Make them restricted free agents after one season. Any money saved on high round picks could be used to compensate underpaid veterans.

[Taro T]

I'm still baffled over the players demands.

 

Why are they collectively asking for more money when contracts are negotiated individually?

 

They want better healthcare benefits when playing days are over? Why? Thy're fortunate to have any at all. The companies I used to work for no longer provide any benefits to me? Keep in mind that the few large corporations or union run companies that do offer post-employment benefits don't expect the beneficiaries to live (and collect benefits) for another 50-60 years. What other industry is responsible to it's employees for 50-60 years of benefits after only 4-5 years of service?

 

The players have extremely generous salaries as compared to the average American worker in their 20's and 30's. They can't sock away a little of that income for better healthcare insurance in the future?

 

Finally, if revenue sharing is the main point of contention, why don't owners just stop agreeing to those contracts. They're the ones setting the bar and forever getting into pissing contests that escalate salaries.

 

All that said, I do wish they would come to a reasonable rookie cap. Giving oodles of money to players who haven't proven a thing seems frivolous and stealing from those who've already made the grade. They should have to endure a complete NFL season and let the teams assess their progress as legitimate NFL producers after one year. Make them restricted free agents after one season. Any money saved on high round picks could be used to compensate underpaid veterans.

Probably because the occupation they are in leads directly to health issues they have in retirement.

[Mickey]

I'm still baffled over the players demands.

 

Why are they collectively asking for more money when contracts are negotiated individually?

 

They want better healthcare benefits when playing days are over? Why? Thy're fortunate to have any at all. The companies I used to work for no longer provide any benefits to me? Keep in mind that the few large corporations or union run companies that do offer post-employment benefits don't expect the beneficiaries to live (and collect benefits) for another 50-60 years. What other industry is responsible to it's employees for 50-60 years of benefits after only 4-5 years of service?

 

The players have extremely generous salaries as compared to the average American worker in their 20's and 30's. They can't sock away a little of that income for better healthcare insurance in the future?

 

Finally, if revenue sharing is the main point of contention, why don't owners just stop agreeing to those contracts. They're the ones setting the bar and forever getting into pissing contests that escalate salaries.

 

All that said, I do wish they would come to a reasonable rookie cap. Giving oodles of money to players who haven't proven a thing seems frivolous and stealing from those who've already made the grade. They should have to endure a complete NFL season and let the teams assess their progress as legitimate NFL producers after one year. Make them restricted free agents after one season. Any money saved on high round picks could be used to compensate underpaid veterans.

 

 

I don't think it is realistic to compare NFL players to average American workers of the same age any more than it would be to compare the income of brain surgeons or movie stars to toll booth operators. They have a marketable skill that is exceedingly rare and for which people are willing to pay a lot of money to see.

 

Your premise, that the players are making demands that are causing this problem is not entirely correct. The owners opted out of the CBA, not the players who were willing to go on as they have been since it was reached. The reason the agreement was possible in the first place is that the players had decertified the union and filed anti-trust suits based on the restrictions the league had on player movement. They won those suits which placed the entire business model of the NFL in danger as limitations on player movement was vital to ensure that all teams could compete fairly. To preserve those limitations, the NFL was finally willing to give in to player demands that they had previously refused to compromise on. The players agreed to give away their freedom to sell their services to the highest bidder as can virtually any other employee in the marketplace in exchange for a share of revenues, effectively making them partners of the league. The players got more money and a little bit of freedom (free agency) and the owners got labor peace, no strikes and no lawsuits. That basic deal has held for many years to the benefit of the league, the owners, the players, the networks and the fans.

 

The owners opted out of that agreement, essentially turning the clock back to 1993. They prepared in advance by negotiating a network deal which ensured they would get paid even if there were no games played in the 2011 season. They gave the networks a discounted price in exchange for that sweet deal. Clearly, the owners have long prepared for enforcing a lockout by taking steps to insure that they would suffer minimal financial damage.

 

We have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors while they tried to negotiate a new CBA. We only know what each side chooses to tell, or leak to the press which is all BS, put out there as propaganda by each side as they try to build public support for their position. Not knowing what is going on, I can't say who is being unreasonable and who isn't nor who should be blamed for an agreement not having been reached. Yes, the players decertified, but they were facing a time constraint the owners were not. The players need to save the 2011 season, it is a financial imperative for them. The owners do not, they have long planned for this lockout and the cash flow interruption it would cause by such measures as the network deal. Going through the courts takes time. And although the NFL might be able to preserve the anti-trust exemption post-decertification, they won't be able to do so forever. The more time that passes, the closer the players get to wherever the line is that the 8th Circuit is drawing for the players to be able to go to court. The union thought the there should be a bright line drawn at decertification rather than having some sort of amorphous, arbitrary date in the future where players are finally entitled to act individually. If the players hadn't decertified when they did, it would no longer have been an option that could conceivably save the 2011season. The NFL knew this from the start and I would be that their negotiation strategy reflected this advantage.

 

I think they are playing with fire. What if the players stick to their guns and refuse to decertify? That would allow the anti-trust suit to go forward sooner or later. The rulings out of the 8th circuit certainly do not grant the league a perpetual, non-statutory exemption from having to obey the anti-trust laws of the United States. It just means that the recent decertification hasn't yet moved the matter out from under Norris-Laguardia and back under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is a temporary situation.

 

And don't forget that the players won their suit over the TV deal the owners signed allowing them to get paid even if no games are played. All that remains to be done there is a hearing on damages. The judge in that case very likely will award the players slightly over half of that money, which would give them around $2 billion to use to weather a season without football. Another successful case on the issue of player movement would be a disaster for the league. They would have to immediately agree to an even more player friendly CBA than the old one, just as they did in 1993 in response to the decision in the McNeil case.

 

There are no heroes here. It's the crips and the bloods fighting over $$ and both are using every tool they have at their disposal to win. I side with the player in general because I think they are the underdog here and because they are the reason I like to watch football, not Jerry Jones and not, even though I love the man, Ralph Wilson.

 

 

 

[Hplarrm]

I'm still baffled over the players demands.

 

Why are they collectively asking for more money when contracts are negotiated individually?

 

They want better healthcare benefits when playing days are over? Why? Thy're fortunate to have any at all. The companies I used to work for no longer provide any benefits to me? Keep in mind that the few large corporations or union run companies that do offer post-employment benefits don't expect the beneficiaries to live (and collect benefits) for another 50-60 years. What other industry is responsible to it's employees for 50-60 years of benefits after only 4-5 years of service?

 

The players have extremely generous salaries as compared to the average American worker in their 20's and 30's. They can't sock away a little of that income for better healthcare insurance in the future?

 

Finally, if revenue sharing is the main point of contention, why don't owners just stop agreeing to those contracts. They're the ones setting the bar and forever getting into pissing contests that escalate salaries.

 

All that said, I do wish they would come to a reasonable rookie cap. Giving oodles of money to players who haven't proven a thing seems frivolous and stealing from those who've already made the grade. They should have to endure a complete NFL season and let the teams assess their progress as legitimate NFL producers after one year. Make them restricted free agents after one season. Any money saved on high round picks could be used to compensate underpaid veterans.

The real issue going on here (and why I think it baffles many folks who by habit view this in terms of a typical AFL-CIO vs.Management dispute is that the fight is between a post-AFL-CIO type union (the NFLPA is a different type of union than the traditional model we are used to from the Sacco and Vanzetti type or child labor dispute).

 

The NFLPA tried the traditional AFL-CIO style under Ed Garvey and got its head handed to it by the NFL team owners in the 80s replacement player dispute.

 

This created an opening for what I call the "talented tenth" of players who led by Gene Upshaw and enlisting the help of a bunch of smart lawyers used the decert strategy to send the NFL owners running to sign the CBA which eventually by agreement gave them a minority share of the total receipts.

 

The dispute going on is really over who is the majority partner in the NFL between the players and the team owners.

 

My bet is on the players for several reasons:

 

1. The players position delivers football to the fans and the owners position does not.

2. I am happy to pay money or watch the players play. I have no natural desire to pay money or to watch the team owners own.

3. The players are actually for more of a free market where the players are independent contractors while the owners are for a system based on a social compact. I think in the end the more free market argument will win out in the American courts and in the public to the extent it focuses on the underlying issues.

[eball]

And here I thought this was going to be a thread about gay pride.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

The NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the players

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791315.0.pdf

17 Redskins assistant coaches say they back their owner rather than the players, and were not consulted about the brief:

 

http://www.rtsports.com/football-news/1000074115

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/26/redskins-coaches-statement-sets-back-coaches-cause/

 

I suppose if Daniel Snyder signed my paycheck I might feel pressured to disavow the brief, too.

 

Weird dynamic at work here.

Edited May 26, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Orton's Arm]

I don't think it is realistic to compare NFL players to average American workers of the same age any more than it would be to compare the income of brain surgeons or movie stars to toll booth operators. They have a marketable skill that is exceedingly rare and for which people are willing to pay a lot of money to see.

 

Your premise, that the players are making demands that are causing this problem is not entirely correct. The owners opted out of the CBA, not the players who were willing to go on as they have been since it was reached. The reason the agreement was possible in the first place is that the players had decertified the union and filed anti-trust suits based on the restrictions the league had on player movement. They won those suits which placed the entire business model of the NFL in danger as limitations on player movement was vital to ensure that all teams could compete fairly. To preserve those limitations, the NFL was finally willing to give in to player demands that they had previously refused to compromise on. The players agreed to give away their freedom to sell their services to the highest bidder as can virtually any other employee in the marketplace in exchange for a share of revenues, effectively making them partners of the league. The players got more money and a little bit of freedom (free agency) and the owners got labor peace, no strikes and no lawsuits. That basic deal has held for many years to the benefit of the league, the owners, the players, the networks and the fans.

 

The owners opted out of that agreement, essentially turning the clock back to 1993. They prepared in advance by negotiating a network deal which ensured they would get paid even if there were no games played in the 2011 season. They gave the networks a discounted price in exchange for that sweet deal. Clearly, the owners have long prepared for enforcing a lockout by taking steps to insure that they would suffer minimal financial damage.

 

We have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors while they tried to negotiate a new CBA. We only know what each side chooses to tell, or leak to the press which is all BS, put out there as propaganda by each side as they try to build public support for their position. Not knowing what is going on, I can't say who is being unreasonable and who isn't nor who should be blamed for an agreement not having been reached. Yes, the players decertified, but they were facing a time constraint the owners were not. The players need to save the 2011 season, it is a financial imperative for them. The owners do not, they have long planned for this lockout and the cash flow interruption it would cause by such measures as the network deal. Going through the courts takes time. And although the NFL might be able to preserve the anti-trust exemption post-decertification, they won't be able to do so forever. The more time that passes, the closer the players get to wherever the line is that the 8th Circuit is drawing for the players to be able to go to court. The union thought the there should be a bright line drawn at decertification rather than having some sort of amorphous, arbitrary date in the future where players are finally entitled to act individually. If the players hadn't decertified when they did, it would no longer have been an option that could conceivably save the 2011season. The NFL knew this from the start and I would be that their negotiation strategy reflected this advantage.

 

I think they are playing with fire. What if the players stick to their guns and refuse to decertify? That would allow the anti-trust suit to go forward sooner or later. The rulings out of the 8th circuit certainly do not grant the league a perpetual, non-statutory exemption from having to obey the anti-trust laws of the United States. It just means that the recent decertification hasn't yet moved the matter out from under Norris-Laguardia and back under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is a temporary situation.

 

And don't forget that the players won their suit over the TV deal the owners signed allowing them to get paid even if no games are played. All that remains to be done there is a hearing on damages. The judge in that case very likely will award the players slightly over half of that money, which would give them around $2 billion to use to weather a season without football. Another successful case on the issue of player movement would be a disaster for the league. They would have to immediately agree to an even more player friendly CBA than the old one, just as they did in 1993 in response to the decision in the McNeil case.

 

There are no heroes here. It's the crips and the bloods fighting over $$ and both are using every tool they have at their disposal to win. I side with the player in general because I think they are the underdog here and because they are the reason I like to watch football, not Jerry Jones and not, even though I love the man, Ralph Wilson.

A very good and well-expressed post! That being said, our perspectives on this matter differ: you are pro-player, I am pro-owner.

 

One possible point of contention between players and owners is whether the NFL should be considered one large business entity, or 32 smaller entities. That question has anti-trust implications. If the NFL was one large entity, it could pay its employees whatever lawful salary it wanted without creating any anti-trust implications. But if 32 separate business entities got together in an effort to restrict wages (for example via a salary cap) it could be considered an anti-trust violation.

 

Traditionally, courts have sided with the players on this question. Their position has been, "You are 32 separate business entities, which would make a salary cap an anti-trust violation. But if the players' union is okay with it, we'll grant you an exemption." The validity of those court rulings could be called into question. If all the world's car manufacturers except for General Motors shut down their operations, GM would benefit by taking their market share. But if every NFL team except for the Bills ceased to exist, the Bills would not benefit. In fact, they'd likely go out of business. The NFL should be considered 32 separate business franchises working together as a single business entity, to produce NFL football.

 

The most recent collective bargaining agreement was highly slanted in favor of the players. One reason for that is while the players were united with each other in demanding a higher salary cap, the owners were not united in a desire to maintain a reasonable cap. On the contrary: the owners of high revenue teams saw a high salary cap as an opportunity to outspend the owners of smaller market, lower revenue teams. Another problem was that the NFL owners had not been given sufficient time to read the collective bargaining agreement before voting on it. Ralph Wilson is no spring chicken, and he's been around long enough to know that if someone wants you to sign something without giving you time to read it, you should typically not agree!

 

Jerry Jones led the way toward the most recent collective bargaining agreement, because he thought a higher salary cap would help high revenue teams (such as the Cowboys) while hurting lower revenue teams such as the Bills. But after looking over his team's finances for the last several years, he's since concluded he made a mistake; and that a spending war between owners would be bad for all the teams in the league. Other owners of high revenue teams have reached a similar conclusion. A few years ago, the sense among most owners of smaller market teams was that a bad labor deal was better than no deal at all. Now the feeling is that if you keep giving the players a higher and higher percentage of the revenue, without once having the moral courage to stand your ground, then in the long run you'll end up giving away nearly everything. Owners of large market teams, like Jerry Jones, have wised up. Owners of small market teams, such as the Jaguars, have grown some gonads. Those two things are why the owners voted 32-0 to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement.

 

Back in the late '90s, the Bills were in salary cap trouble. While a lot of that was poor planning by John Butler, that demonstrates that the Bills could spend right up to (and even a little beyond) the salary cap if they wanted to. Subsequent increases in players' share of the revenues are a big reason why today's Bills are nowhere near the salary cap. Nor are they alone: a number of other teams are far from the salary cap because of the large salary cap increases over the last decade.

 

Some people on the players' side have made the argument that the salary cap should be high because of injuries to players. It is true that football can produce brain damage, and that this is a serious problem. On the other hand, nearly every NFL player played high school football, for which he received no financial compensation. Almost every NFL player played college football, for which his only compensation was free tuition, room and board. If high school players' brain trauma is not compensated at all, and if college players' brain trauma is compensated only minimally, then why is NFL players' brain trauma worth millions? Is Travis Henry's brain really that much more valuable than that of some straight A high school player who wasn't a good enough athlete to move on to college ball?

 

Brain trauma to players is indeed a very serious problem, and one which clearly needs to be solved. Every aspect of the game should be rigorously evaluated to reduce brain trauma. Everything should be on the table, including rules changes, equipment changes, and changes in how practices are conducted. The NFL needs to lead the way on this, with any beneficial changes it creates hopefully trickling down to college and high school football programs. I haven't seen anything which would even remotely suggest the players' union has asked for this kind of systematic effort to reduce brain trauma. Whenever I've seen them bring up the subject of brain trauma, it has always been within the context of attempting to justify their financial demands.

 

Some might argue that no matter how much you change the rules, there will always still be some brain trauma. So why not pay players more to compensate them for this? That kind of logic could be used to justify an increase in the NFL's minimum salary level. An increase such as that would benefit the players who are being paid the least, and consequently are receiving the smallest level of compensation for the brain trauma they incur. But that has not been the players union's emphasis. Instead, they have primarily focused on creating a high overall salary cap. A high salary cap does literally nothing to help players making the NFL minimum. Its benefits are absorbed primarily by a small number of highly paid players--the Tom Bradys of the league.

 

I am not suggesting I fully agree with the NFL owners on all issues. But I am extremely unsympathetic to the players' union. The more I read of their propaganda and their intended aims, the less sympathetic I tend to become. If I was a player, I would be extremely unhappy with the union representation I was receiving. (Or failing to receive, after the decertification.)

[1B4IDie]

If the coaches are siding with the players and the players are having informal workout. Maybe now the coaching can join-in the informal workouts with their playbooks?