NFLPA comes out swinging

Friday, February 04 2011

On Wednesday, the NFL's lead negotiator in the current collective bargaining talks said there was "no disagreement" that the current deal was unfair and needed to be "reset." But in his own news conference Thursday, the executive director of the players' union ... well, he disagreed.

"There's fundamental disagreement," DeMaurice Smith said. "We are at the apex of generated revenue in the NFL. We believe that every economic indicator we have or anybody who independently looks at this would agree with the players' perspective. And yet, at the height of the economic success of football, you're now asking the players to give back $1 billion a year for the next seven years. My guess is there's probably a little bit of disagreement."

Bad news for football fans hoping the disagreement would end soon and a collective bargaining deal could be reached by the time the current one expires on March 3. The union may have taken a couple of hits in their legal battles with the league this week, and the two sides may be scheduled to meet Saturday here at the Super Bowl, but the NFLPA is still in full fight mode and doesn't appear ready to stop anytime soon.

"We will always take whatever steps we need to take to achieve our goals," Smith said. "I believe the league has taken steps to effectuate a lockout for a very long time, and the players are committed to making sure that doesn't happen."

The history of disputes between these sides favors the owners heavily, and Smith is conscious of that. For that reason, his strategy has involved a number of legal and procedural maneuvers designed to let the public (and, perhaps more importantly, his constituents) know that they're up for a fight.

The latest move came Thursday, when the union announced that it would challenge teams' rights to designate franchise players in 2011. The players argue that the current CBA allows each team to use the franchise designation for one of its free agents "each season during the term of this agreement."

"The 2011 season is not 'a season during the term of this agreement,'" the union's statement read. "So the NFL has no valid basis for claiming the right to franchise players in 2011."

The union would appear to have a case here, but the same could have been said for its attempt to get a special master to freeze $4.5 billion in TV money on the grounds that the owners planned to use it as lockout insurance. The special master ruled earlier this week that that was what the owners were doing with the money, but refused to grant the union's request that the money be held in escrow until a new deal is reached. Instead, the union received about $7 million in damages and is appealing.

So they fight on. They continue to fight the owners' attempt to push a deal that swings the revenue split in the owners' favor, insisting (so far unsuccessfully) that the owners open their books to illustrate the specifics of the dire financial straits they claim. They remain opposed (apparently unanimously) to the owners' plan to expand the regular season to 18 games.

"Any change that increases the risk of injury, increases the risk of concussion and shortens careers is not something that's in the interest of the players of the National Football League," Smith said.

So they fight it. The thing is, though, that the fight is coming to a head. If no deal is reached by March 4, players will lose their health care coverage, and that fear is one they regularly communicate to Smith and their leadership. We are approaching the time at which tough talk will need to be supported by the actual taking of tough stands. Historically, the players haven't been able to do that. This time, they insist they will.

"I think we've done a great job of educating our players," Arizona Cardinals kicker and player rep Jay Feely said. "I think they know they may have to make a little sacrifice for the greater good. And I think they're committed to that."

A potential fissure seemed to appear last week when Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie used a favored unprintable epithet of his to describe people on each side of the dispute (including Smith). But those in attendance on the players' behalf Thursday laughed that off.

"We're a family," union president Kevin Mawae said. "There are always going to be guys in your family who don't like what's going on, and they have the right to speak out. But Antonio Cromartie is a great player and he will be one of the guys who will benefit from this next CBA. I guarantee that."

In reality, there are no guarantees about how any of this turns out. And the odds are still stacked dramatically in favor of the owners. But one thing that does appear to be guaranteed is that as long as they can, the players intend to fight this fight the other side started when the owners decided to end the current agreement early. (source Fanhouse.com)