The NFLPA Is Becoming A Sham Organization

[BillsVet]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/45705432/nflpa-head-works-firm-approved-invest-nfl

 

Imagine being represented by a union where your executive director:

 

1. Works with management to ensure your pay is made less guaranteed than it could be.  Then, agrees with management to keep an arbitrator's findings from becoming known to members that specifies this happened.  

 

2. Receives a multi-million dollar compensation package representing your union while simultaneously doing outside work.  When asked to resign from one part-time position, he refuses.  

 

3. That outside work includes working for a private equity firm, albeit in another sector, that is likely to invest in NFL franchises.  And, serves on 3 other boards and is paid by those companies as well.  

 

The NFLPA has gradually, since the death of Gene Upshaw, become more of partners with the NFL than anything else.  At the same time, the search committee recommended this guy and it's their funeral for hiring him.  

 

I only highlight this situation because, at some point, the players' relationship with both the league and their executive/leadership will sour if it hasn't already.  And that means what has been labor peace since 2012 will likely end.  The current CBA doesn't expire until 2030, but at some point I expect there will be problems.  

[Augie]

Great, the Bills finally win a Super Bowl during the strike year with scab players. Does this make the “One Before I Die” contingent happy?  

[Fleezoid]

Ahhh....another example of conflict of interest and profiting from inappropriate business relationships in full view, only to be likely swept under the carpet and ignored until it gradually fades away.....

 

....Because the regular season is only 2 months way. 

[MJS]

None of that seems like that big of a deal to me, but I don't really care what the NFL or NFLPA does. Until it has a direct impact on my ability to watch Bills football, they can do all their squabbling and legal posturing they want. I'm just a football fan.

[Big Turk]

Perhaps they think labor peace is better for the game and fans long term than the minor gains they would be getting.

 

When you are arguing that hundreds of millions isn't enough, I think the average fan would be hard pressed to take their side...or really the owners side.

 

Millionaires vs. Billionaires doesn't really resonate with fans if that's the cause of them not playing and being able to consume the product.

[WotAGuy]

Long snappers and special teamers unite!! 

[Mat68]

Imo they always have and that is why the NFL players have the worst contract structure of every pro league.  

[ddaryl]

well if players feel this way they can vote no cofidence and change leadership. From what I understand this is being discussed between players

[Mat68]

8 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

Perhaps they think labor peace is better for the game and fans long term than the minor gains they would be getting.

 

When you are arguing that hundreds of millions isn't enough, I think the average fan would be hard pressed to take their side...or really the owners side.

 

Millionaires vs. Billionaires doesn't really resonate with fans if that's the cause of them not playing and being able to consume the product.

100% NBA and MLB both stopped seasons to get what they wanted.  Both greatly impacted the popularity of both.  NFL is in a spot at the top and a false move would have negative impact.  Players should hold out for guaranteed contracts no offset.  Give up an extra game and 16 internal games a year. Probaly need to give a percentage point or 2 to the owners.  

[RoscoeParrish]

57 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/45705432/nflpa-head-works-firm-approved-invest-nfl

 

Imagine being represented by a union where your executive director:

 

1. Works with management to ensure your pay is made less guaranteed than it could be.  Then, agrees with management to keep an arbitrator's findings from becoming known to members that specifies this happened.  

 

2. Receives a multi-million dollar compensation package representing your union while simultaneously doing outside work.  When asked to resign from one part-time position, he refuses.  

 

3. That outside work includes working for a private equity firm, albeit in another sector, that is likely to invest in NFL franchises.  And, serves on 3 other boards and is paid by those companies as well.  

 

The NFLPA has gradually, since the death of Gene Upshaw, become more of partners with the NFL than anything else.  At the same time, the search committee recommended this guy and it's their funeral for hiring him.  

 

I only highlight this situation because, at some point, the players' relationship with both the league and their executive/leadership will sour if it hasn't already.  And that means what has been labor peace since 2012 will likely end.  The current CBA doesn't expire until 2030, but at some point I expect there will be problems.  

Making contracts more guaranteed will almost certainly hurt the vast majority of players. It’s a zero sum salary cap league. The more money dedicated to the Josh Allen’s is less money for the Darrick Forests. Guess how many of those guys there are in the league?

 

The point of unions is to represent the overall player interests. Not just the superstars.

 

And a good union should try to maintain a positive relationship with the overlying company. Being pointlessly contentious for posturing is just that. They should be a partner with a seat at the table to get things done for their constituents. 

[Tuco]

When the latest CBA with its current model was signed in 2020 the salary cap was $198 million and minimum rookie salary was $610,000. Despite a catastrophic loss in revenue and a decreasing cap in 2021, the salary cap is up to $279 million just 5 years later - rookie minimum is $840,000. If the union members want the guy gone, they will get rid of him. But I'm not going to sit around pressing the labor unrest panic button just yet.

[JP51]

9 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said:

Making contracts more guaranteed will almost certainly hurt the vast majority of players. It’s a zero sum salary cap league. The more money dedicated to the Josh Allen’s is less money for the Darrick Forests. Guess how many of those guys there are in the league?

 

The point of unions is to represent the overall player interests. Not just the superstars.

 

And a good union should try to maintain a positive relationship with the overlying company. Being pointlessly contentious for posturing is just that. They should be a partner with a seat at the table to get things done for their constituents. 

See, now I think what may happen is it may lower the overall contract amounts given to big stars and may provide more security for the lesser player since you need 53... But I guess you could look at this both ways... and different teams could play it out differently... I don't know... but could GMs be like look... I need to field a solid team on both sides of the ball I need more than 1 or 2 "It" guys...  I dont know... I am just speculating.. but it was my first thought when I read it as to the outcome

[HardyBoy]

 

 

[BillsVet]

42 minutes ago, MJS said:

None of that seems like that big of a deal to me, but I don't really care what the NFL or NFLPA does. Until it has a direct impact on my ability to watch Bills football, they can do all their squabbling and legal posturing they want. I'm just a football fan.

 

It's a big picture issue, so I get that some will gloss over it for this reason.  

 

Whole point is...the league and union are working together and someone stands to lose.  Especially when you consider there are player safety issues with going to 17 and likely to 18 games.  Or, with the increased cap, which all too often is weighted for a more limited group of players.  

 

Something has to give at some point.       

[MJS]

2 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

It's a big picture issue, so I get that some will gloss over it for this reason.  

 

Whole point is...the league and union are working together and someone stands to lose.  Especially when you consider there are player safety issues with going to 17 and likely to 18 games.  Or, with the increased cap, which all too often is weighted for a more limited group of players.  

 

Something has to give at some point.       

I do think that it usually comes down to money. Both the NFL and NFLPA are focused on money for themselves and their stakeholders. And since the NFL is such a money making machine, they can actually be aligned a good deal of the time. They don't always have to be at each other's throats on every issue. It's ok if they are aligned much of the time. When they aren't, it just kind of sucks for everyone.

 

But yes, the nature of it is that they are going to be opposed some of the time, by design.

[HardyBoy]

39 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

Perhaps they think labor peace is better for the game and fans long term than the minor gains they would be getting.

 

When you are arguing that hundreds of millions isn't enough, I think the average fan would be hard pressed to take their side...or really the owners side.

 

Millionaires vs. Billionaires doesn't really resonate with fans if that's the cause of them not playing and being able to consume the product.

 

The percentage of players making hundreds of millions of dollars incredibly low...after you take out taxes and agent fees and how much it costs to stay in shape for football year round...and think that most players in the league are making near minimum salaries and that their careers are like under 3 years on average...and then they leave the league at like 25 years old with likely debilitating life long injuries that are likely going to keep them from working, especially if the only job someone might be qualified for is a trade job, which no knock on trade jobs in the slightest, incredibly important and respectable and appreciated work...just hard to do that type of work with joints that don't work in a degenerative sense at 25 and you potentially don't have health insurance

 

 

[BillsVet]

6 minutes ago, Tuco said:

When the latest CBA with its current model was signed in 2020 the salary cap was $198 million and minimum rookie salary was $610,000. Despite a catastrophic loss in revenue and a decreasing cap in 2021, the salary cap is up to $279 million just 5 years later - rookie minimum is $840,000. If the union members want the guy gone, they will get rid of him. But I'm not going to sit around pressing the labor unrest panic button just yet.

 

Those data points obscure what is the economic reality in the NFL: a higher share of the cap is going to fewer players.  It's not unexpected because the supply of excellent QBs, WRs, and pass rushers will always be in demand.  And the model the NFL employs will pay them accordingly.   Conversely, you can see it with RB's...they're largely not being paid (cue the person who points to Saquon Barkley) because their skill-set isn't as valuable.  

 

Besides, highlighting the decreased 2021 cap fails to consider the aberration that the pandemic was.  

[MJS]

4 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

Those data points obscure what is the economic reality in the NFL: a higher share of the cap is going to fewer players.  It's not unexpected because the supply of excellent QBs, WRs, and pass rushers will always be in demand.  And the model the NFL employs will pay them accordingly.   Conversely, you can see it with RB's...they're largely not being paid (cue the person who points to Saquon Barkley) because their skill-set isn't as valuable.  

 

Besides, highlighting the decreased 2021 cap fails to consider the aberration that the pandemic was.  

The least paid players have the least sway over the NFLPA, and that's just how it is always going to be. Increasing salary minimums actually takes money from the higher paid players. So, it isn't that it is players versus the NFL all the time, it is actually players versus players in different economic classes that is the reality. And yeah, players who make more money have more power and more sway. Veterans take precedence over non-veterans as well. This isn't just an NFL vs NFLPA thing.

[corta765]

Respectfully I think your wrong. The NFLPA functions to protect all players and salaries have constantly risen for a long time know for all. The rookie wage scale hurt the younger players but helped the older ones. The biggest thing which is the NFLPA's own fault is the additional games they have allowed. If you are adding games 17 and unfortunately soon 18 it seems how do you not start building in mandatory rest period before thursday games, travel rules, etc.. things to help with player recovery. 

 

One of the things most sports leagues have wised up to is how harmful work stoppages are. The MLB is the cautionary tale of being King and then throwing yourself off the thrown. At the end of the day fans either hate both parties or end up backing the owners over the players. The 2012 ref strike showed how bad it can get if things go unresolved and fans were furious to the point the Fail Mary single handedly altered the negotiation. 

 

To me the thing the NFL has to be really careful with is the streaming part. The ability to watch the best games in the NFL without paying allows the NFL in my opinion to stay king. If they ever touch those CBS/FOX/NBC packages that people watch without needing to pay for I think they may overdo what they have and it won't be reversable.

[RoscoeParrish]

32 minutes ago, JP51 said:

See, now I think what may happen is it may lower the overall contract amounts given to big stars and may provide more security for the lesser player since you need 53... But I guess you could look at this both ways... and different teams could play it out differently... I don't know... but could GMs be like look... I need to field a solid team on both sides of the ball I need more than 1 or 2 "It" guys...  I dont know... I am just speculating.. but it was my first thought when I read it as to the outcome

That would be the idea, but the history of the league is that the “middle class” and down gets squeezed when there’s a money shift.

 

You are asking billionaires who largely don’t enjoy writing big checks to write bigger ones. And the notoriously cash poor ones would be looking to pinch money elsewhere and that paints a bulleyes on the market of the STer commanding $3M a season.
 

For the 2011 CBA, the vets famously wanted the rookie scale implemented. They were sick of guys like Sam Bradford commanding large salaries without paying a snap. Their thought process was “if teams are paying rookies less, there is more money to pay us more.”

 

What happened is that GMs couldn’t ignore that a second to 7th round rookie could reasonably fill in their spot for a fraction of the cost. And there was a real exodus of lower class vets out of the league. Why pay a backup DB or LB $2M when basically the entire rookie class will make less than them?

 

This got so bad that they had to implement that the rule regarding LEAGUE MINIMUMS that scaled with years served had to be written so that the cap hit remained static while the cash paid remained incremental.

 

To quote a famous saying, “my family can’t live in Good Intentions, Marge”

Edited 3 hours ago by RoscoeParrish