The NFLPA Is Becoming A Sham Organization

[Ballsy]

35 minutes ago, JP51 said:

 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...  

Why do you need to field a team on both sides of the ball?  All it takes is one bold (crazy?) GM to never take offensive snaps.  Imagine sinking 100% of your salary cap into defensive players and special teams.  No quarterback, no offensive lineman.  Every time your team gets the ball (on kick or turnover) you try to return for touchdown.  If you don't return for a touchdown, on first down, you either attempt a field goal, or punt back to the other team.  Never play offense.    

The typical NFL team takes 63 offensive snaps.  Since your team will take zero offensive snaps, your opponents will have to take 125+ snaps.  Imagine how tired their OL will get while you platoon the top 40 defensive players in the league against them.  Imagine how frustrated your opponent's defense will be as they will never take the field the entire game.  You could effectively take about 50% of your opponents salary cap out of the game.

You'd have to buy the best kickers, punters and punt returners, and defensive players in the league, but I think no one would want to play you.  This would only work in the NFL with the a salary cap.

[JP51]

4 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said:

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”

Yeah, this is a fair viewpoint... I just dont know... there always tends to be paradigm shifts in this league...  away from RB, back to RB, Big DL, Fast DL... etc... I think people always look for the advantage to change the narrative... I have kinda felt for a long time now that when you look at QBs making 35mm a year against a starting RB making 3.5mm the conversation is at somepoint gonna switch like is he really 10x more important than me??  (When the answer is no... he is only 10x rarer than you)... anyways... is someone gonna finally start the switch away from paying your top 5 40% of your cap...  figuring an more even distribution and attracting B+ players for your other starting 17 is better than averaging b minus players...  again, I don't know... but I can see a couple things.. IMO, the wage disparity is increasing and potentially is becoming unproductive... and trends change... does this mean it will... I don't know... but it might...  however, if the league keeps making rule changes to favor the QB/WR then it may never... good discussion though... 

[machine gun kelly]

1 hour ago, Mat68 said:

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

The counter to this is the NFL is the most violent professional league with 53 active staff, and 17 PS.  They already have made a lot of progress in guaranteed contracts.  Not Watson, but across the board with starters.  It would be financially irresponsible to have all guaranteed contracts.  It would also be foolish.  What do you do about the $250 mil. QB contract and gets a career ending injury in the 3rd game of the season of season 1 of a 5 year contract.  It will never happen.

 

Besides Im a fan, and really dont care how either side manages their business.  Football is not a career.  Not when the avg life of an NFL player is still inder 4 years.

[BillsVet]

48 minutes ago, MJS said:

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.

 

People missing the point.  There's always going to be more salary concentrated in the hands of the fewer players who have skill sets that are better particularly at positions of high positional value.   No one is demanding that interior OL or backup safeties get paid like top QB or WR.    

 

Still, if you're a union member, be it NFLPA, AFL-CIO, CSEA, whatever and the executive is working with management or offering token resistance on issues...the likely outcomes are going to be bad. 

 

Conflict in labor relations can be a good thing if both sides are strong and have differing viewpoints.  What isn't good is to avoid all conflict and collude so that negotiations are easy...that typically ends with rank and file getting a bad contract.      

Edited July 10 by BillsVet

[RoscoeParrish]

17 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

Not when the avg life of an NFL player is still inder 4 years

That’s why beane was ahead of the curve drafting a 1 year old Tremaine Edmunds

[Billy Claude]

What surprised me was that the union was so weak they couldn't have at least gotten rid of the franchise and transition tag in exchange for adding game 17.  They left so much on the table in the last negotiations that it wouldn't be shocking to me if someone at the top of the NFLPA was on the take.

 

Edited July 10 by Billy Claude

[RoscoeParrish]

1 hour ago, Billy Claude said:

What surprised me was that the union was so weak they couldn't have at least gotten rid of the franchise and transition tag in exchange for adding game 17.  They left so much on the table in the last negotiations that it wouldn't be shocking to me if someone at the top of the NFLPA was on the take.

 

How many players are affected by the franchise tag annually?

 

1?

 

less than 1?

 

It’s not a marquee issue and it definitely shouldn’t be.

 

Players don’t care about the things fans think they care about. 99% of NFL players are willing to risk everything for a 1 year $30M deal fully guaranteed. 

[Billy Claude]

It is would have been something that players don't like and would have been incredibly easy to get given how much the NFL wanted the 17th game, something akin to getting floor mats when you buy a car.

[Tuco]

5 hours 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.  

 

Nah. Go back to 2011 and total the top 10 cap charges for each team and compare it to the $120 million cap. You will come up between 40%-50% for almost every team. Then add up the top 10 cap charges for each team in 2025 and compare it with the $279 million cap. You will still come up at 40%-50% for almost every team. 

 

Maybe it's being doled out to different positions. But the top players are still raking in the same percentage of the pie they always were. And that pie is growing by a huge amount every year. Which brings me back to the point of my post. If the players have a problem with the guy they will oust him. But I still don't believe, even if it's total shenanigans on his part, it's going to be enough to cause any kind of labor unrest between now and 2030. But that's just me.

[Buffalo ill]

Sounds like the racket we call the steelworkers union.  I think since USW replaced the paper makers union at my mill (long before I even started working here) every contract has been concessionary.

[Big Turk]

6 hours ago, Mat68 said:

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.  

 

Not only are they at the top spot, they are ahead by miles in a marathon.

 

They have almost double the revenue of the next closest sport worldwide, which is MLB or NBA depending on which year as they keep going back and forth.

 

On top of that, forget the National Pastime, the NFL is the National Obsession.

 

They are non-stop, all the time without any offseason. It's NFL season 24/7/365. During the NHL, MLB or NBA finals, the NFL is still the most talked about thing in sports.

 

75 of the top 100 watched shows every year in the US are NFL games and the NFL draft on day 1 averaged more viewers than the NBA and NHL finals and not much less than the World Series.

 

It's kinda insane actually.

Edited July 10 by Big Turk

[RoscoeParrish]

6 hours ago, JP51 said:

Yeah, this is a fair viewpoint... I just dont know... there always tends to be paradigm shifts in this league...  away from RB, back to RB, Big DL, Fast DL... etc... I think people always look for the advantage to change the narrative... I have kinda felt for a long time now that when you look at QBs making 35mm a year against a starting RB making 3.5mm the conversation is at somepoint gonna switch like is he really 10x more important than me??  (When the answer is no... he is only 10x rarer than you)... anyways... is someone gonna finally start the switch away from paying your top 5 40% of your cap...  figuring an more even distribution and attracting B+ players for your other starting 17 is better than averaging b minus players...  again, I don't know... but I can see a couple things.. IMO, the wage disparity is increasing and potentially is becoming unproductive... and trends change... does this mean it will... I don't know... but it might...  however, if the league keeps making rule changes to favor the QB/WR then it may never... good discussion though... 

trends change for sure.

 

i think the thing you have to think about is free agency. You don’t have 1 competitor, you have 31. And they are really dictating price of X guys, collectively. 
 

And the laws of nature means that bad players will always outnumber the good ones and the great ones will be far and few between.

 

You can’t build a roster of B+ players making B+ money because there will always be teams willing to pay them A money to steal them away.  Heck, the Bills lost guys like Gabe and Edmunds to that not too long ago.

Water will find its level, like it always does. RBs are still devalued, just not crazily so. WRs will still get paid a ton, but maybe a little less in the future

[Billy Claude]

8 hours ago, Tuco said:

If the players have a problem with the guy they will oust him. But I still don't believe, even if it's total shenanigans on his part, it's going to be enough to cause any kind of labor unrest between now and 2030. But that's just me.

 

The players do have a problem with the NFLPA leadership.  They ousted the previous president of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith for giving away too much to the NFL during the last contract negotiations in 2023 and they don't seem to be too happy with the new one also. I would not be surprise if he is also ousted when his contract runs out.

 

Like I said before, they should have gotten a lot more for agreeing to go to a 17th game.

 

Edited July 11 by Billy Claude

[hmsmystic]

I don't understand posts like this.   I have no objection to players being fairly compensated, but I am a fan on THE TEAM.  The salary cap is real.  Overpaying and guaranteed contracts are generally onerous on the cap, and hurts the chances of signing additional players.  Yes, it's a bit unfair for some of these payers but it protects THE TEAM.  That's good right?  The league needs protection from nutcases like Jimmy Haslem, ruining his franchise for years with the Deshean Watson contract, which is what a large, guaranteed contract could do to a team.

[letsgoteam]

9 hours ago, Augie said:

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?  

yes, it counts to me

[Buffalo716]

9 hours ago, Mat68 said:

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

NHL players get paid a fraction of what NFL players do lol

 

The NHL commissioner is way way worse than Rodger goodell

[Doc Brown]

8 hours ago, corta765 said:

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.

I don't think that's going to happen.  If they put too many games on streaming platforms only at some point they'll jeopardize its broadcast antitrust exemption.  It's still why they'll put a streaming game only in local markets on one of the major networks.  They're too smart for that as they're king for a reason.

[Billy Claude]

9 hours ago, hmsmystic said:

I don't understand posts like this.   I have no objection to players being fairly compensated, but I am a fan on THE TEAM.  The salary cap is real.  Overpaying and guaranteed contracts are generally onerous on the cap, and hurts the chances of signing additional players.  Yes, it's a bit unfair for some of these payers but it protects THE TEAM.  That's good right?  The league needs protection from nutcases like Jimmy Haslem, ruining his franchise for years with the Deshean Watson contract, which is what a large, guaranteed contract could do to a team.

 

The NFLPA is supposed to get the best deal that they can get for the players.  It is not the purpose of the NFLPA to protect the owners from themselves. 

 

NFL players get 48% of football related income.  NBA players get 51% and NHL players get 50%.  The average NBA salary is about $12M, the average NHL salary is $3.5M and the average NFL salary is $3.2M.  NBA and NHL contracts are mostly guaranteed while most NFL contracts are not even though NFL players have shorter careers and are more likely to have serious injuries.

 

Increasing the fraction to the players to 50% will drive zero teams out of business nor will it affect ticket prices, how many streaming platforms games appear on nor how many international games there are.

 

No matter how you look at it, the NFL players have the worse CBA is any major sport.

 

 

Edited July 11 by Billy Claude

[MikePJ76]

 NFL players union is weak because the players are in it for themselves . They have never had a strong union for this exact reason.  
 

they don’t have the stomach for the fight like Major League Baseball players did.

 

i remember Joe Montana, Lawrence Taylor, Randy white etc…crossing the picket line in 82 and 87.  You will never have a strong union if the stars who have been paid don’t care about the rest of the guys.

 

 most of the players see the world through the eyes of the owners.  Pure individual greed.

[Ayjent]

You get a circus because you are dealing with players AND their agents in your bargaining unit so you’re playing a much different role as a union than what a traditional union would.  Also, there are extreme disparities in compensation that results in an extremely difficult balance bc there are a ton of conflicts of interest inherent between the players.  Working in partnership with the owners isn’t a bad strategy if you are able to represent your employees effectively that way and can be good for all parties if they are meeting each others interest without extreme measures.  In fact, that is the definition of ideal. It’s not a zero sum game.  I served in various union capacities and was a union chapter president for over 6 years.  We rarely litigated but we got great deals done for both parties because our union was extremely diligent and hard working to both understand what our employees really wanted and needed and what our management/executives wanted and where the organizations challenges were.  We got our unit to nearly 100% nationwide telework prior to the pandemic (didn’t have any major challenges when it hit), people have extremely flexible schedules, and we have great incentive awards structures that raised our productivity.  All of the benefits were tailored to meet managements interests and were measured in their implementation with pilots and willingness to tweak the programs on both sides.  Our union provided many solutions that worked when our management failed to meaningfully address them with their own attempts.  We may be an outlier but more than anything good leadership is key and makes all the difference - conflict isn’t a necessity unless someone is being a moron.