Fixxxer Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 BETHESDA, Md. – Back in March of 2009, when he was elected to succeed the late Gene Upshaw as the NFL Players Association’s executive director, DeMaurice Smith considered himself the ultimate union man. Two years later, when Smith announced that the NFLPA would decertify and become a trade association after negotiations with league owners on a new collective bargaining agreement broke down, most people assumed that this was a temporary tactical maneuver designed to allow players to seek leverage through the legal system. The NFL has enunciated this argument in a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, charging that the NFLPA’s move to decertify and become a trade association was a sham. Smith, however, insists that he has embraced decertification as an enduring state of existence, much in the same way that Upshaw did in the early ’90s before – at the NFL’s insistence – he agreed to re-form the union. In an interview with Y! Sports earlier this month, Smith revealed that he envisions navigating the NFLPA through a union-free future, even after a possible settlement of the Brady et al antitrust lawsuit and a new contractual agreement between players and owners. “I’ve come full circle,” Smith said as he sat in a downtown Bethesda plaza, a few miles from the NFLPA’s Washington D.C. headquarters, on a sunny spring morning. “When I went into this, my attitude was that the only way you have power is collectively, and I believed in unions as vehicles for employees asserting their rights. But looking back on what Gene experienced and understanding this particular situation, I’ve now come to appreciate the value of decertification in our particular circumstance. And I don’t see why we’d want to go back to being a union.” If Smith’s comments seem shocking, consider that he is touching upon a pressure point that dates back more than 20 years. Certainly, the owners would strongly resist any post-settlement arrangement in which the players weren’t unionized, just as they did in 1990, when the league sued the NFLPA to try to force it to represent the players in labor negotiations. Absent a union, players would be free to assert their legal rights under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and accepted institutions such as the NFL draft and rules governing free agency would be vulnerable to courtroom challenges. It’s also possible that a non-unionized workforce could gain legal protection from a lockout, as the players did in April in successfully obtaining an injunction from U.S. District Court Judge Susan Nelson. more in the link.... http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_nflpa_could_stay_permanently_decetified_052711 Is this what's best for the players? Or is it to benefit a small percentage of them? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 more in the link.... http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_nflpa_could_stay_permanently_decetified_052711 Is this what's best for the players? Or is it to benefit a small percentage of them? What do you think? They would be cooking the goose that lays the golden eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 What else is he supposed to say? "uh naw, we're just doing this desertification thing for a show. Don't worry will be unified again as soon the Owners agree to let us keeping 60%." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 xakly he HAS to say what hes saying, otherwise the courts would rip him and the players a new one the millisecond a deal is reached with the nfl, he will shockingly become a dedicated union man once again so i guess that means hes come full half-circle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I think by far the most telling part of the story is that it is the owners that want the players to operate as a union. If the NFL really did make it a stipulation of the signing the collective bargaining agreement that the players reform the union it is obviously in the owners benefit for there to be a union. Why would the owners want their workforce to unionize if it was a bad thing for them? Therefore we should logically be able to assume the reverse in that the a union is not good for the players. Add in that the players had to decertify to take the legal course of action that they did and that should be proof enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 We'll see how many players like the "permanent decertification" and no draft when brady and Manning get 20 million per season while 1500 out of the 1700 NFL players are making 50k per season because thats all the owners will pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeyBomb Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I can't wait until there are no games played at all. Let's see which side breaks then. 800 million says its the players side. They are stupid for not accepting that first deal which would have covered the health of all players to ever play the game and ect ect. Smith should be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I really need to stop reading threads about this...I can't believe this is still going on...the whole thing is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I've never understood the whole "anti-trust" thing. The owners should get together and re-form the NFL as a corporation with 32 shareholders (owners), and 32 franchises. The reality is that the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets (for example) do not compete like Target and Wal-Mart. No NFL team has a main revenue-generating product (football), unless there is at least 1 other NFL team involved. If the NFL wouldn't be allowed to set up drafts, player salary caps, or other "monopoly" behavior, why would it be allowed to dictate how many yards are on the field, how many points a touchdown is worth, or what the playoff system is like? It seems to me that these should all be contracted in individual joint ventures between pairs of teams, right? Otherwise there is collusion going on to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) We'll see how many players like the "permanent decertification" and no draft when brady and Manning get 20 million per season while 1500 out of the 1700 NFL players are making 50k per season because thats all the owners will pay. Obviously you're exaggerating but I get the point I think you are trying to make. I don't profess to know all of the legalease in there but I don't think the players are prevented from operating as a group just not as a "union". We could let the american capitalist system take over and let it run it's course. Obviously for 50K a year you will not have quality people around your Peyton Manning making him ineffective. Naturally some level of appropriate compensation will be arrived at as teams are comprised of many players that all have to be dedicated to practice and play at a very high level. Kind of like other businesses in america. Business owners will try to get by on the cheap until it significantly impacts the product on the field then they will realize that they will have to pay better salaries for better employees. Edited May 27, 2011 by PDaDdy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 he will say anything if he thinks it will give him leverage with owners to get a favorable deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoretalk Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I've never understood the whole "anti-trust" thing. The owners should get together and re-form the NFL as a corporation with 32 shareholders (owners), and 32 franchises. The reality is that the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets (for example) do not compete like Target and Wal-Mart. No NFL team has a main revenue-generating product (football), unless there is at least 1 other NFL team involved. If the NFL wouldn't be allowed to set up drafts, player salary caps, or other "monopoly" behavior, why would it be allowed to dictate how many yards are on the field, how many points a touchdown is worth, or what the playoff system is like? It seems to me that these should all be contracted in individual joint ventures between pairs of teams, right? Otherwise there is collusion going on to some degree. What you said! If someone wants to work for a centrally organized employer even one with many outlets that are dependent on each other then that person must accept the assignments, salaries, and benefits established or negotiated by that employer and their employees. An example is the federal government. If someone graduating from college with a degree in government relations wants to work for the IRS or Social Security or another branch of the federal government they cannot negotiate with the local IRS office. They have to apply to work through the national IRS and then they will be assigned to a work location with a salary that is the same (with perhaps some locality adjustments) nationally. If they want to work for a State or local government then they do not get the benefits offered by the feds. To me it should be the same with NFL players. If they want to work/play for the NFL well then the NFL sets the rules and establishes where they can play because the league is truly one entity dependent on the interaction of its franchises. It is not 32 competing businesses because otherwise merchandise, rules, working conditions, etc. would have to differ. Target and Wal-Mart do not plan a Spring sale together and then rotate the shared location for the sale (Opening Sale Day at Wal-Mart and the Sunday Night Sale at Target with both stores selling their stuff.). If football players want the benefits of playing in the NFL then they have to follow the NFL rules and go where the NFL says they need to go for the benefit of the business (the NFL). If they don't like the NFL's work condtions they can go indoor league, CFL, or get a real job and play in some amateur league in the city of their choosing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 I've never understood the whole "anti-trust" thing. The owners should get together and re-form the NFL as a corporation with 32 shareholders (owners), and 32 franchises. The reality is that the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets (for example) do not compete like Target and Wal-Mart. No NFL team has a main revenue-generating product (football), unless there is at least 1 other NFL team involved. If the NFL wouldn't be allowed to set up drafts, player salary caps, or other "monopoly" behavior, why would it be allowed to dictate how many yards are on the field, how many points a touchdown is worth, or what the playoff system is like? It seems to me that these should all be contracted in individual joint ventures between pairs of teams, right? Otherwise there is collusion going on to some degree. The problem is that the Cowboys are worth about a billion dollars more than the Jaguars. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-08-25-nfl-franchise-values_N.htm). So you're going to have to get Jerry to give up a lot of value or else give him extra shares, which causes plenty of problems. There's not really an easy balance to be struck; but you'd have to think that everyone is currently making enough money that ultimately, somebody's going to cave. Quite probably before any games are missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) What you said! If someone wants to work for a centrally organized employer even one with many outlets that are dependent on each other then that person must accept the assignments, salaries, and benefits established or negotiated by that employer and their employees. An example is the federal government. If someone graduating from college with a degree in government relations wants to work for the IRS or Social Security or another branch of the federal government they cannot negotiate with the local IRS office. They have to apply to work through the national IRS and then they will be assigned to a work location with a salary that is the same (with perhaps some locality adjustments) nationally. If they want to work for a State or local government then they do not get the benefits offered by the feds. To me it should be the same with NFL players. If they want to work/play for the NFL well then the NFL sets the rules and establishes where they can play because the league is truly one entity dependent on the interaction of its franchises. It is not 32 competing businesses because otherwise merchandise, rules, working conditions, etc. would have to differ. Target and Wal-Mart do not plan a Spring sale together and then rotate the shared location for the sale (Opening Sale Day at Wal-Mart and the Sunday Night Sale at Target with both stores selling their stuff.). If football players want the benefits of playing in the NFL then they have to follow the NFL rules and go where the NFL says they need to go for the benefit of the business (the NFL). If they don't like the NFL's work condtions they can go indoor league, CFL, or get a real job and play in some amateur league in the city of their choosing. Normal businesses in some ways are not good analogies. Imagine your scenario if there were less than 2000 people in the entire world that could perform their job duties? You can't just go out and grab any bum off the street and stick him in at a position and expect him to perform. That works with burger flippers, street sweepers, accountants, etc. Guys that run 4.3 or are a muscular nimble 300+ lbs or have rocket launchers for arms don't grow on trees. Another thing that people that take this approach forget is that if the product on the field sucks THE FANS will be the first ones to B word about the lack of talent in the NFL. Like few other professions there are only a handful of people that can perform the duties and they are paid exorbitant salaries compared to other fields. Supply and demand works for talent pools as well as commodities. If you don't care about seeing the biggest, fastest, strongest and smartest football players give up on the NFL and watch your local area arena league football team with guys that you and I might be able to out run or lift and feel good that you aren't supporting whiny exceptionally physically gifted millionaires. Edited May 27, 2011 by PDaDdy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 The NFL shouldn't be compared to the average business. Without the draft and salary cap, football becomes like baseball. Certain teams like Dallas, Washington, New England, attract all the major players and pay them ridiculous amounts of money. Teams like the Bills, Jaguars, Packers, etc. are screwed. Eventually, those teams will have to move or the NFL will cut down to less teams. A select few players will make way more than they make now. The majority of players will probably make less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 The NFL shouldn't be compared to the average business. Without the draft and salary cap, football becomes like baseball. Certain teams like Dallas, Washington, New England, attract all the major players and pay them ridiculous amounts of money. Teams like the Bills, Jaguars, Packers, etc. are screwed. Eventually, those teams will have to move or the NFL will cut down to less teams. A select few players will make way more than they make now. The majority of players will probably make less. does the populace really want a major league baseball situation in the NFL?, boston, yankees, philly.. just a handful of the same teams year after year being relevant?. i know the answer, but just feel it is inevitable if things play out the way the lawyers for the players want it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flmike Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Obviously for 50K a year you will not have quality people around your Peyton Manning making him ineffective. And exactly where would those players take their services? I would say that a good percentage of football players would not be making $50,000 if they were not good football players. Their other prospects would be quite a bit more limited. Not all, mind you, but a healthy percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) We'll see how many players like the "permanent decertification" and no draft when brady and Manning get 20 million per season while 1500 out of the 1700 NFL players are making 50k per season because thats all the owners will pay. Yeah because you just find 6-6 300 pound people that are athletic anywhere. They;ll probably pay Peyton Manning 100 million. Then get the cart boys from the grocery store to play O-line and pay them $4 an hour plus tips. Makes perfect sense. Edited May 28, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I think it'd be a bonanza for a few players and an utter disaster for the majority of players, majority of owners, and a majority of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 What else is he supposed to say? "uh naw, we're just doing this desertification thing for a show. Don't worry will be unified again as soon the Owners agree to let us keeping 60%." Bingo its all posturing. Don't believe anything in such a high stakes bargaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts