Wednesday, February 16 2011
One of the best NFL seasons in history is now over. We salute NFL players for their extraordinary talent and we deeply appreciate the tremendous support of the fans.
The hard work to secure the next NFL season must now accelerate in earnest. We are just weeks from the expiration of our collective bargaining agreement. There has been enough rhetoric, litigation and other efforts beyond the negotiating table. It is time for serious negotiations.
The current agreement expires on March 4, and I cannot emphasize enough the importance of reaching agreement by then. If we as a league — the teams and players’ union — fail to fulfill our shared responsibility to the fans and game, everyone will be worse off — players, teams and fans — starting in March.
This is an opportunity to create a better future for the NFL, to improve the game for our fans, and to expand the economic benefits for the players and teams.
Staying with the status quo is not an option. The world has changed for everyone, including the NFL and our fans. We must get better in everything we do.
The union has repeatedly said that it hasn’t asked for anything more and literally wants to continue playing under the existing agreement. That clearly indicates the deal has moved too far in favor of one side. Even the union’s president knows this — as he said on national radio on January 27: “I think what really happened is in 2006 we got such a great deal. I mean, the players got a good deal and the owners felt they got it handed to them.”
We need an agreement that both sides can live with and obtain what they need, not simply what they want.
Today’s collective bargain agreement does not work as it should from the standpoint of the teams. If needed adjustments are made, the NFL will be better for everyone. The first step is making sure a new collective bargaining agreement is more balanced and supports innovation and growth.
The NFL clubs want to move forward, improve the system, and secure the future of the game for the benefit of players, fans and teams.
The status quo means no rookie wage scale and the continuation of outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies. In 2009, for example, NFL clubs contracted $1.2 billion to 256 drafted rookies with $585 million guaranteed before they had stepped on an NFL field. Instead, we will shift significant parts of that money to proven veterans and retired players.
The status quo means 16 regular-season and four preseason games — even though fans have rejected and dismissed four preseason games at every opportunity. We need to deliver more value to our fans by giving them more of what they want at responsible prices. This can be achieved if we work together and focus on more ways to make the game safer and reduce unnecessary contact during the season and in the off-season.
The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home.
The status quo means players continuing to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, no matter how the national economy or the economics of the league have changed. From 2001 to 2009, player compensation doubled and the teams committed a total of $34 billion to player costs. The NFL is healthy in many respects, but we do not have a healthy business model that can sustain growth.
Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they mismanaged their costs and failed to address their problems before they became a crisis. The NFL has a track record over many decades of making good decisions that have led to unprecedented popularity. Negotiating a fair agreement will result in billions in pay and benefits to current players, improved benefits for retired players, and a sustainable business model for our teams.
The current deal does not secure the best possible future for the game, players, clubs and fans. The next few weeks must be used to negotiate with intensity and purpose so we can reach a fair agreement by March 4. If both sides compromise and give a little, everyone will get a lot, especially the fans. (source NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell)
miércoles, 16 de febrero de 2011
Labor board doesn't have timetable on NFL's claim vs. union
Wednesday, February 16 2011
The National Labor Relations Board said Tuesday that it doesn't have a firm timetable for determining if the NFL's claim against the NFL Players Association has merit.
The NFL filed the claim Monday, stating the NFLPA hasn't collectively bargained in good faith and seeking a pre-emptive ruling to eliminate the union's ability to decertify following the March 3 expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.
The NFLPA decertified in 1989, and while the union's subsequent lawsuit (Reggie White vs. the NFL) was heard, the players continued to play under the then-current rules. Many labor experts expected a similar tactic this offseason in the event of a lockout, with decertification a means of keeping games played in the interim, albeit under current labor rules which the players favor and the league wants altered.
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith met with each team this season to conduct votes on possible decertification in the event of a lockout or league-imposed rules this offseason. The measure passed unanimously.
Nancy Cleeland, director of public affairs for the National Labor Relations Board, explained the process for investigating a claim like the NFL's and said there is no firm timetable on how long it could take. She also said at this point it is undermined if, by merely filing the claim, the NFL would in effect preclude the union from decertifying until a ruling is made by the NLRB.
"Can there be a decertication election while a charge is pending? That's something our general counsel will have to decide," Cleeland said.
The NLRB will thoroughly investigate the matter -- one labor source said the process in general isn't particularly speedy and tends to be time-consuming and exhaustive -- beginning with regional field staff and/or staff attorneys interviewing members of both negotiating parties, pouring over records of each session, what was proposed and whether or not parties showed up on time. They will try to determine if the NFLPA has in fact been "surface bargaining," in essence putting forth minimal offers with the intent of eventually decertifying, Cleeland said, a charge the union flatly denies.
"We will be trying to figure out if they have been 'surface bargaining,' and quite frankly, that's tricky to determine," Cleeland said.
"But we do get that charge quite a bit," she said, adding that it's generally made by unions against management/ownership.
If the initial investigation results in a claim being filed by the NLRB, there normally would be a formal hearing during which officials on both sides would be required to answer questions (Cleeland said "the vast majority" of claims are settled by the parties involved or are dismissed, stressing this was a generality without speaking in any way to the merits of the NFL's case).
Cleeland also detailed the actual process by which a union can decertify.
In most cases, an "election" would take place, with at least 30 percent of the union required to actually sign the petition to decertify. The NLRB would oversee the election process, "ensuring the vote count, making sure the rights of the voters are protected," Cleeland said, and making sure it is done in private.
Voting potentially could be done via voting booths, by mail and also over the internet, Cleeland said, but the NLRB is currently researching whether or not an election would be required in the case of the NFLPA. She said there could be provisions in the CBA that supersede the need for an election, and the NLRB also is reviewing the steps the union took in 1989 as it seeks to determine if an election would be required again.
The NFL is aiming to make the entire process a moot point with Monday's claim. (source NFL.com)
The National Labor Relations Board said Tuesday that it doesn't have a firm timetable for determining if the NFL's claim against the NFL Players Association has merit.
The NFL filed the claim Monday, stating the NFLPA hasn't collectively bargained in good faith and seeking a pre-emptive ruling to eliminate the union's ability to decertify following the March 3 expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.
The NFLPA decertified in 1989, and while the union's subsequent lawsuit (Reggie White vs. the NFL) was heard, the players continued to play under the then-current rules. Many labor experts expected a similar tactic this offseason in the event of a lockout, with decertification a means of keeping games played in the interim, albeit under current labor rules which the players favor and the league wants altered.
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith met with each team this season to conduct votes on possible decertification in the event of a lockout or league-imposed rules this offseason. The measure passed unanimously.
Nancy Cleeland, director of public affairs for the National Labor Relations Board, explained the process for investigating a claim like the NFL's and said there is no firm timetable on how long it could take. She also said at this point it is undermined if, by merely filing the claim, the NFL would in effect preclude the union from decertifying until a ruling is made by the NLRB.
"Can there be a decertication election while a charge is pending? That's something our general counsel will have to decide," Cleeland said.
The NLRB will thoroughly investigate the matter -- one labor source said the process in general isn't particularly speedy and tends to be time-consuming and exhaustive -- beginning with regional field staff and/or staff attorneys interviewing members of both negotiating parties, pouring over records of each session, what was proposed and whether or not parties showed up on time. They will try to determine if the NFLPA has in fact been "surface bargaining," in essence putting forth minimal offers with the intent of eventually decertifying, Cleeland said, a charge the union flatly denies.
"We will be trying to figure out if they have been 'surface bargaining,' and quite frankly, that's tricky to determine," Cleeland said.
"But we do get that charge quite a bit," she said, adding that it's generally made by unions against management/ownership.
If the initial investigation results in a claim being filed by the NLRB, there normally would be a formal hearing during which officials on both sides would be required to answer questions (Cleeland said "the vast majority" of claims are settled by the parties involved or are dismissed, stressing this was a generality without speaking in any way to the merits of the NFL's case).
Cleeland also detailed the actual process by which a union can decertify.
In most cases, an "election" would take place, with at least 30 percent of the union required to actually sign the petition to decertify. The NLRB would oversee the election process, "ensuring the vote count, making sure the rights of the voters are protected," Cleeland said, and making sure it is done in private.
Voting potentially could be done via voting booths, by mail and also over the internet, Cleeland said, but the NLRB is currently researching whether or not an election would be required in the case of the NFLPA. She said there could be provisions in the CBA that supersede the need for an election, and the NLRB also is reviewing the steps the union took in 1989 as it seeks to determine if an election would be required again.
The NFL is aiming to make the entire process a moot point with Monday's claim. (source NFL.com)
No new talks this week (this is bad news)
Wednesday, February 16 2011
As part of the increasing communication gap between the two sides, the NFL has denied there were any collective bargaining negotiating sessions scheduled this week, as a union official had claimed Monday.
A union spokesman told ESPN Monday the league failed to confirm two sessions this week that had been on the docket. The union official said the two sides had previously scheduled the meetings, pending confirmation from the league.
The negotiating sessions were tentatively set for Tuesday and Wednesday, the union official said.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello called the union's claim "complete fiction."
"There were no meetings scheduled so there was nothing to re-confirm," Aiello said.
The NFL filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board Monday against the union.
The NLRB is a federal agency that enforces the nation's labor laws and referees labor-management disputes.
The current collective bargaining agreement expires at 11:59 p.m. ET March 3. The NFL Players Association has said it is expecting the owners to lock out players; the NFL's filing with the NLRB says that the union wants to "run out the clock" and, essentially, avoid reaching a new CBA so it can decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit. (source ESPN)
As part of the increasing communication gap between the two sides, the NFL has denied there were any collective bargaining negotiating sessions scheduled this week, as a union official had claimed Monday.
A union spokesman told ESPN Monday the league failed to confirm two sessions this week that had been on the docket. The union official said the two sides had previously scheduled the meetings, pending confirmation from the league.
The negotiating sessions were tentatively set for Tuesday and Wednesday, the union official said.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello called the union's claim "complete fiction."
"There were no meetings scheduled so there was nothing to re-confirm," Aiello said.
The NFL filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board Monday against the union.
The NLRB is a federal agency that enforces the nation's labor laws and referees labor-management disputes.
The current collective bargaining agreement expires at 11:59 p.m. ET March 3. The NFL Players Association has said it is expecting the owners to lock out players; the NFL's filing with the NLRB says that the union wants to "run out the clock" and, essentially, avoid reaching a new CBA so it can decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit. (source ESPN)
Panthers owner Richardson labelled a bully by players
Wednesday, February 16 2011
Nothing has been smooth about negotiations between the NFL and its players union so far, and we’ve now reached the “he said/she said” portion of the program. This article was written by Darin Gantt and appeared in the Charlotte Observer.
Sparked by a radio appearance by a player who wasn’t in the room, followed by a report on Yahoo.com, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson is being painted as condescending and a bully by players.
The firestorm started with Arizona kicker Jay Feely’s appearance on ESPN 1050’s “The Michael Kay Show,” when the NFLPA player rep said Richardson was behaving poorly in the negotiating meeting the day before the Super Bowl.
“When you bring in emotion, then you get in the way of logic,” Feely began. “When Jerry Richardson, the owner of the Carolina Panthers, is their lead negotiator for the owners, and he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting on Saturday. And sit there and say dismissively of Peyton Manning, ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart son, do i need to help break that down for you, because I don’t know if you understand how to read that.’
“That doesn’t go anywhere in trying to help us get a deal done.”
That was followed by a report citing anonymous sources that described Richardson as “extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton.”
A Panthers spokesman said Monday those reports were a “mischaracterization,” of Richardson’s feelings, but said he wouldn’t comment further, since Richardson wanted the negotiations to happen in private.
The Panthers owner has taken a hard line in negotiations, and is known within the league as one of ownerships’ hawks. During a rambling January press conference, he even drew pictures to illustrate what he believed to be the bad deal owners agreed to in 2006, and opted out of two years later.
“It’s said to me when I meet with the union lawyers, they say Mr. Richardson we want more money, more benefits and we want to work less,” Richardson said. “Then they say let’s begin the negotiations. I’m not optimistic we’re making a lot of progress.”
Nothing has been smooth about negotiations between the NFL and its players union so far, and we’ve now reached the “he said/she said” portion of the program. This article was written by Darin Gantt and appeared in the Charlotte Observer.
Sparked by a radio appearance by a player who wasn’t in the room, followed by a report on Yahoo.com, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson is being painted as condescending and a bully by players.
The firestorm started with Arizona kicker Jay Feely’s appearance on ESPN 1050’s “The Michael Kay Show,” when the NFLPA player rep said Richardson was behaving poorly in the negotiating meeting the day before the Super Bowl.
“When you bring in emotion, then you get in the way of logic,” Feely began. “When Jerry Richardson, the owner of the Carolina Panthers, is their lead negotiator for the owners, and he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting on Saturday. And sit there and say dismissively of Peyton Manning, ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart son, do i need to help break that down for you, because I don’t know if you understand how to read that.’
“That doesn’t go anywhere in trying to help us get a deal done.”
That was followed by a report citing anonymous sources that described Richardson as “extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton.”
A Panthers spokesman said Monday those reports were a “mischaracterization,” of Richardson’s feelings, but said he wouldn’t comment further, since Richardson wanted the negotiations to happen in private.
The Panthers owner has taken a hard line in negotiations, and is known within the league as one of ownerships’ hawks. During a rambling January press conference, he even drew pictures to illustrate what he believed to be the bad deal owners agreed to in 2006, and opted out of two years later.
“It’s said to me when I meet with the union lawyers, they say Mr. Richardson we want more money, more benefits and we want to work less,” Richardson said. “Then they say let’s begin the negotiations. I’m not optimistic we’re making a lot of progress.”
martes, 15 de febrero de 2011
KC Mayor calls on Cheifs chairman to speak out on lockout
Tuesday, February 15 2011
Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser wrote Chiefs chairman Clark Hunt last week regarding the NFL's labor negotiations and the possibility of a lockout. Here is the text of the letter:
Dear Mr. Hunt:
I have followed with concern the media reports about a looming lock out in the game that I love with all of my heart. It is clear that the vast popularity and financial success of football means that a lock out cannot be in the interest of anybody involved, particularly the fans, workers or businesses who support the game. I understand the need for both sides to create pressure, but I also know that at times it is important to decrease tenor and tone in order for the right deal to be made in a non-emotional atmosphere.
Accordingly, I call upon the owners to announce to the fans that they will not lock out the players. The players already have pledged to not strike. By making the parallel commitment, the owners would create the breathing room for a deal to be struck. This is common sense if the owners truly want to keep the game going, as Commissioner Goodell has stated.
Sincerely,
Mark Funkhouser
Mayor, City of Kansas City, Missouri
This article was written by the staff of the Kansas City Star and appeared in the Kansas City Star.
Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser wrote Chiefs chairman Clark Hunt last week regarding the NFL's labor negotiations and the possibility of a lockout. Here is the text of the letter:
Dear Mr. Hunt:
I have followed with concern the media reports about a looming lock out in the game that I love with all of my heart. It is clear that the vast popularity and financial success of football means that a lock out cannot be in the interest of anybody involved, particularly the fans, workers or businesses who support the game. I understand the need for both sides to create pressure, but I also know that at times it is important to decrease tenor and tone in order for the right deal to be made in a non-emotional atmosphere.
Accordingly, I call upon the owners to announce to the fans that they will not lock out the players. The players already have pledged to not strike. By making the parallel commitment, the owners would create the breathing room for a deal to be struck. This is common sense if the owners truly want to keep the game going, as Commissioner Goodell has stated.
Sincerely,
Mark Funkhouser
Mayor, City of Kansas City, Missouri
This article was written by the staff of the Kansas City Star and appeared in the Kansas City Star.
Owners show little interest in smoothing things overr with NFLPA
Tuesday, February 15 2011
Hopefully NFLPA executive director De Smith will get a nice Valentine’s Day gift from his wife, because he definitely won’t be receiving any candy hearts from the NFL or the 32 owners today. This article was written by Ben Volin and appeared in the Palm Beach Post..
Though the owners are saying publicly that their only goal is to not miss any football in 2011 — “We certainly, unanimously want to get a deal done before we lose any play time,” Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said at the Senior Bowl — their actions at the negotiating table portray a much different message.
With a March 4 lockout date quickly approaching, the owners and NFLPA were supposed to sit down for two long bargaining sessions last week to start ironing out their differences. Instead, the owners ended the first day of negotiations early and canceled the next day’s session as well.
The NFL owners are now trying to play damage control, claiming that they didn’t abandon the negotiating process and instead are simply reassessing their options. But several observers — particularly Mike Florio at ProFootballTalk — are coming to the same conclusion we did last week:
The potential NFL lockout isn’t about the NFL having to change its system because of “economic realities,” as commissioner Roger Goodell has said several times. Purely and simply, it’s about the owners wanting more money. And it appears they will try to bully the players until they get their way.
The players, who currently make about 59 percent of the league’s gross revenues (though that number is disputed), proposed a cut to 50 percent in the next CBA. Instead of making a counter-proposal, the owners simply walked away from the negotiating table.
“I’ve said it all along, owners want to break (the) players,” South Florida-based agent David Canter, who represents a handful of Dolphins players, said last night on Twitter.
What else did the NFLPA propose last week that the owners deemed to offensive?
Andrew Brandt of the National Football Post, and formerly the vice president of the Green Bay Packers from 1999-2008, has a terrific breakdown of the recent negotiations that went awry. It focused on one of the most important issues in this labor negotiation — a rookie salary cap, which both sides appear to want. But even with both the owners and players agreeing that unproven rookies should no longer receive large multi-million dollar contracts, the sides still remain far apart.
Read Brandt’s article for complete details of the proposals from both sides. For a Cliff’s Notes version, the NFLPA is willing to institute a salary cap for rookies, but want in return shorter contracts (allowing players to reach free agency, and a big pay day, more quickly), injury guarantees and assurances that the cost savings would be given to veteran players and to the pensions of retired players.
The owners, in return, want pre-determined contract values based on draft position, want to lock players into their contracts for 4-5 years, and don’t want to give the players any option to re-negotiate for outperforming their contracts. The NBA has a similar system for rookie contracts, but the NFL’s proposal is much more heavy-handed.
Brandt broke down how NFL rookies would be compensated based on the proposals made by the two sides compared to the current system.
Pick - 2009 contract - NFLPA proposal - NFL proposal
9 - 22.5M/5 yrs - 18M/4 yrs - 8.65M/5 yrs
19 - 12.5M/5 yrs - 10M/4 yrs - 6.7M/5 yrs
41 - 4.325M/4 yrs - 4.3M /4 yrs - 4M/4 yrs
As you can see, the players most affected would be the rookies taken at the top of the first round.
The issue of the rookie wage scale will eventually get ironed out, because both sides want it to happen. But it doesn’t appear that a new CBA will be agreed to — or a lockout be avoided — until the owners stop trying to impose its will on the NFLPA and instead make a good faith effort to negotiate.
Hopefully NFLPA executive director De Smith will get a nice Valentine’s Day gift from his wife, because he definitely won’t be receiving any candy hearts from the NFL or the 32 owners today. This article was written by Ben Volin and appeared in the Palm Beach Post..
Though the owners are saying publicly that their only goal is to not miss any football in 2011 — “We certainly, unanimously want to get a deal done before we lose any play time,” Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said at the Senior Bowl — their actions at the negotiating table portray a much different message.
With a March 4 lockout date quickly approaching, the owners and NFLPA were supposed to sit down for two long bargaining sessions last week to start ironing out their differences. Instead, the owners ended the first day of negotiations early and canceled the next day’s session as well.
The NFL owners are now trying to play damage control, claiming that they didn’t abandon the negotiating process and instead are simply reassessing their options. But several observers — particularly Mike Florio at ProFootballTalk — are coming to the same conclusion we did last week:
The potential NFL lockout isn’t about the NFL having to change its system because of “economic realities,” as commissioner Roger Goodell has said several times. Purely and simply, it’s about the owners wanting more money. And it appears they will try to bully the players until they get their way.
The players, who currently make about 59 percent of the league’s gross revenues (though that number is disputed), proposed a cut to 50 percent in the next CBA. Instead of making a counter-proposal, the owners simply walked away from the negotiating table.
“I’ve said it all along, owners want to break (the) players,” South Florida-based agent David Canter, who represents a handful of Dolphins players, said last night on Twitter.
What else did the NFLPA propose last week that the owners deemed to offensive?
Andrew Brandt of the National Football Post, and formerly the vice president of the Green Bay Packers from 1999-2008, has a terrific breakdown of the recent negotiations that went awry. It focused on one of the most important issues in this labor negotiation — a rookie salary cap, which both sides appear to want. But even with both the owners and players agreeing that unproven rookies should no longer receive large multi-million dollar contracts, the sides still remain far apart.
Read Brandt’s article for complete details of the proposals from both sides. For a Cliff’s Notes version, the NFLPA is willing to institute a salary cap for rookies, but want in return shorter contracts (allowing players to reach free agency, and a big pay day, more quickly), injury guarantees and assurances that the cost savings would be given to veteran players and to the pensions of retired players.
The owners, in return, want pre-determined contract values based on draft position, want to lock players into their contracts for 4-5 years, and don’t want to give the players any option to re-negotiate for outperforming their contracts. The NBA has a similar system for rookie contracts, but the NFL’s proposal is much more heavy-handed.
Brandt broke down how NFL rookies would be compensated based on the proposals made by the two sides compared to the current system.
Pick - 2009 contract - NFLPA proposal - NFL proposal
9 - 22.5M/5 yrs - 18M/4 yrs - 8.65M/5 yrs
19 - 12.5M/5 yrs - 10M/4 yrs - 6.7M/5 yrs
41 - 4.325M/4 yrs - 4.3M /4 yrs - 4M/4 yrs
As you can see, the players most affected would be the rookies taken at the top of the first round.
The issue of the rookie wage scale will eventually get ironed out, because both sides want it to happen. But it doesn’t appear that a new CBA will be agreed to — or a lockout be avoided — until the owners stop trying to impose its will on the NFLPA and instead make a good faith effort to negotiate.
NFL files complaint against union
Tuesday, February 15 2011
The NFL filed a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board on Monday charging that the league's Players Association has not been bargaining in good faith. This article was written by Sean Leahy and appeared in USA Today.
The complaint alleged that the NFLPA has been using "surface bargaining" as the sides prepare for the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement after March 3.
The NFL charged that the union has been intent on decertifying and alleged that the NFLPA has engaged in "tactics designed to avoid reaching an agreement before the CBA expires so that it can file antitrust litigation."
But the union dismissed the NFL's claim in a statement.
"The players didn't walk out and the players can't lock out," the union said. "Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit."
The NFL claimed the union's bargaining strategy was "a ploy and an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process."
The sides have been bickering in recent weeks and met last week in formal bargaining sessions. If no new deal is reached before the CBA expires, the owners could impose a lockout.
The NFL's move to the NLRB could be the latest strategic move as the sides gird for what could be a protracted battle both at the bargaining table and potentially in courts this year.
The NFL filed a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board on Monday charging that the league's Players Association has not been bargaining in good faith. This article was written by Sean Leahy and appeared in USA Today.
The complaint alleged that the NFLPA has been using "surface bargaining" as the sides prepare for the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement after March 3.
The NFL charged that the union has been intent on decertifying and alleged that the NFLPA has engaged in "tactics designed to avoid reaching an agreement before the CBA expires so that it can file antitrust litigation."
But the union dismissed the NFL's claim in a statement.
"The players didn't walk out and the players can't lock out," the union said. "Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit."
The NFL claimed the union's bargaining strategy was "a ploy and an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process."
The sides have been bickering in recent weeks and met last week in formal bargaining sessions. If no new deal is reached before the CBA expires, the owners could impose a lockout.
The NFL's move to the NLRB could be the latest strategic move as the sides gird for what could be a protracted battle both at the bargaining table and potentially in courts this year.
Point Counterpoint II
Tuesday, February 15 2011
The current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL players and owners that was signed in 2006 will expire on March 3. In May 2008, NFL owners opted out of the agreement early. The players want to play a full NFL season in 2011 and have offered to extend the current deal in an effort to work out a long-term deal without an interruption of league operations. The players haven't asked for anything more and literally don't want anything more. They have asked simply to play under the existing agreement.
The NFL is at the height of its popularity and success. According to reports Thursday, the NFL and ESPN are close to a nearly $2 billion renewal for the rights to "Monday Night Football." In 2010, 65 of the top 100 watched sporting events in the U.S. were NFL games. Eighteen of the top 20 viewed telecasts this television season were NFL games, and we haven't even seen the playoffs yet. Revenues are up. Sponsorships are up. Every television ad for this year's Super Bowl was sold months ago. All signs and indicators point to extraordinary success and rapid growth for the business of football.
According to the NFL and team owners, however, the "economic model in the NFL doesn't work." What's more, they have prepared for and are openly threatening a lockout if it's not "fixed." What is their proposal to fix it? They've asked the players for more than a $1 billion reduction in the players' portion of revenues in the first year alone of a future CBA. By the way, in a league with no guaranteed contracts, revealed dangers of the game and injury concerns at their peak, they want players to play two extra regular-season games.
The players maintain that one fundamental question needs to be answered in earnest if there is to be an agreement before a lockout: Why is the current deal so bad? If owners had decided to make this a direct business transaction between partners, the players are confident a deal would've been struck a long time ago. Business partners get together, sign confidentiality agreements, exchange financials and negotiate. Our repeated requests for detailed financial information that would help us answer the quintessential question have been denied.
As a result, players and fans have to go by what we do know. I recently sent a letter to all sports editors to set the record straight on the economics and revenue breakdown between players and owners because the phrase most frequently seen is that "players get 60 percent of revenues." This is not an accurate depiction. Players receive approximately 50 percent of all revenues in the NFL. Or, players receive approximately 60 percent of total revenue in the NFL after the owners take a number of expense credits that add up to more than $1 billion a year.
This is significant because the past 10 years of financial data at the highest levels show that the players' portion of revenues has decreased slightly. Simply put, the available data directly contradict the rationale and explanation of the NFL's justification for a rollback or, worse, a lockout. An unjustified lockout not only would prevent players from playing and fans from watching but also would have real negative economic consequences on NFL team cities.
The players have asked repeatedly for financial transparency and economic information. We have been told publicly and privately that detailed financials are "none of your business." In an era of greater financial transparency, this is confusing. Frankly, it signals that this negotiation is about something much different from figuring out how to work together to secure the future of the game.
For example, the owners have been clamoring for a rookie wage scale. They cited "exploding" rookie contracts as a reason for opting out early in 2008. The players offered a proposal to address owners' concerns called the proven performance plan. The NFL said no based on unwillingness to guarantee that the saved rookie money would go toward proven veteran players.
It's a shame that, nearly 1,000 days after the NFL owners opted out of the CBA, they can't guarantee NFL games next year. It's a shame heading into exciting playoffs with great games ahead that this unresolved issue continues to steal headlines. It's a shame that the owners are threatening to prevent players from playing football. It's a shame that the unanswered question remains: Why is this deal so bad?
The NFL players have asked me to share a simple request on their behalf: Open the books and let us play. (source George Atallah is the assistant executive director for external affairs at the NFLPA. You can follow him on Twitter at @georgeatallah via ESPN)
The current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL players and owners that was signed in 2006 will expire on March 3. In May 2008, NFL owners opted out of the agreement early. The players want to play a full NFL season in 2011 and have offered to extend the current deal in an effort to work out a long-term deal without an interruption of league operations. The players haven't asked for anything more and literally don't want anything more. They have asked simply to play under the existing agreement.
The NFL is at the height of its popularity and success. According to reports Thursday, the NFL and ESPN are close to a nearly $2 billion renewal for the rights to "Monday Night Football." In 2010, 65 of the top 100 watched sporting events in the U.S. were NFL games. Eighteen of the top 20 viewed telecasts this television season were NFL games, and we haven't even seen the playoffs yet. Revenues are up. Sponsorships are up. Every television ad for this year's Super Bowl was sold months ago. All signs and indicators point to extraordinary success and rapid growth for the business of football.
According to the NFL and team owners, however, the "economic model in the NFL doesn't work." What's more, they have prepared for and are openly threatening a lockout if it's not "fixed." What is their proposal to fix it? They've asked the players for more than a $1 billion reduction in the players' portion of revenues in the first year alone of a future CBA. By the way, in a league with no guaranteed contracts, revealed dangers of the game and injury concerns at their peak, they want players to play two extra regular-season games.
The players maintain that one fundamental question needs to be answered in earnest if there is to be an agreement before a lockout: Why is the current deal so bad? If owners had decided to make this a direct business transaction between partners, the players are confident a deal would've been struck a long time ago. Business partners get together, sign confidentiality agreements, exchange financials and negotiate. Our repeated requests for detailed financial information that would help us answer the quintessential question have been denied.
As a result, players and fans have to go by what we do know. I recently sent a letter to all sports editors to set the record straight on the economics and revenue breakdown between players and owners because the phrase most frequently seen is that "players get 60 percent of revenues." This is not an accurate depiction. Players receive approximately 50 percent of all revenues in the NFL. Or, players receive approximately 60 percent of total revenue in the NFL after the owners take a number of expense credits that add up to more than $1 billion a year.
This is significant because the past 10 years of financial data at the highest levels show that the players' portion of revenues has decreased slightly. Simply put, the available data directly contradict the rationale and explanation of the NFL's justification for a rollback or, worse, a lockout. An unjustified lockout not only would prevent players from playing and fans from watching but also would have real negative economic consequences on NFL team cities.
The players have asked repeatedly for financial transparency and economic information. We have been told publicly and privately that detailed financials are "none of your business." In an era of greater financial transparency, this is confusing. Frankly, it signals that this negotiation is about something much different from figuring out how to work together to secure the future of the game.
For example, the owners have been clamoring for a rookie wage scale. They cited "exploding" rookie contracts as a reason for opting out early in 2008. The players offered a proposal to address owners' concerns called the proven performance plan. The NFL said no based on unwillingness to guarantee that the saved rookie money would go toward proven veteran players.
It's a shame that, nearly 1,000 days after the NFL owners opted out of the CBA, they can't guarantee NFL games next year. It's a shame heading into exciting playoffs with great games ahead that this unresolved issue continues to steal headlines. It's a shame that the owners are threatening to prevent players from playing football. It's a shame that the unanswered question remains: Why is this deal so bad?
The NFL players have asked me to share a simple request on their behalf: Open the books and let us play. (source George Atallah is the assistant executive director for external affairs at the NFLPA. You can follow him on Twitter at @georgeatallah via ESPN)
Point Counterpoint
Tuesday, February 15 2011
The NFL players' union says, "The players haven't asked for anything more and literally don't want anything more. They have simply asked to play under the existing agreement."
That ought to tell you something. If a collective bargaining agreement particularly favors one side, that side naturally won't want to change anything. That's how the players saw it in the '70s and '80s. The players believed the system favored the teams because there was no free agency. The players went on strike several times and then to court to change it.
Now the system does not work as well as it could from the standpoint of the teams. The time has arrived for adjustments that create an opportunity to make the game and league better.
The crux of the difference is this: The union accepts the status quo, while the NFL wants to improve and secure the future of the game for the benefit of fans and players.
The status quo means no rookie wage scale and the continuation of outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies instead of shifting significant portions of that money to proven veterans and retired players.
The status quo means four preseason games in spite of the overwhelming rejection of it that by both fans and players.
The status quo means no league investment in new stadium development in Los Angeles and other cities, in international games, or in new technology to improve our service to fans in stadiums and at home.
The status quo means players continue to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, in a good economy or one with 10 percent unemployment, and no matter how much costs have risen for the teams. Player compensation has doubled in the past decade, and the union says NFL team payrolls rose 6 percent this year. Meanwhile, other costs for teams have risen dramatically.
NFL players have an extremely favorable revenue-sharing deal and full access to all information on revenue and a great deal of information on costs, including the largest cost, which is for players. The union has audit rights to all league and team revenue. The problem, however, is not revenue. It is costs. The union knows the problem. Costs must be properly balanced against revenue so that the league and the game can continue to grow. Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they did not properly manage their costs. Our goal is to fix the problem now before it becomes a crisis. That means negotiating a fair agreement that continues to provide billions to the players while also giving the teams a sustainable business model and improving the quality of everything we do.
Why is the current deal so bad, asks the union? Because it does not secure the best possible future for the game, players, clubs and fans. The union has said its "internal deadline" for reaching an agreement has passed. Does that mean the union has abandoned negotiations in favor of de-certification and litigation? We hope not. Rather than litigating and firing misguided salvos about the "shame" of the situation, it would be far more productive and much more in keeping with the interests of teams and fans if the union returned to the bargaining table and made a good-faith effort to reach an agreement before March 4. After that, it is going to become much more difficult.
The new CBA is about the future of the game and doing what's necessary to improve the quality of the game. That means addressing player safety, retired players, preseason, the way we pay rookies and making sure the league's business model works for the future. If we do that, players, teams and fans can continue share in the benefits of growth. The status quo is not acceptable because it will not allow us to build the game with the players as we have done so successfully in the past.
As commissioner Roger Goodell has said, if both sides give a little, everyone will get a lot. (source Greg Aiello is the NFL's Senior Vice President of Public Relations. For more information on NFL collective bargaining issues, go to www.nfllabor.com, via ESPN)
The NFL players' union says, "The players haven't asked for anything more and literally don't want anything more. They have simply asked to play under the existing agreement."
That ought to tell you something. If a collective bargaining agreement particularly favors one side, that side naturally won't want to change anything. That's how the players saw it in the '70s and '80s. The players believed the system favored the teams because there was no free agency. The players went on strike several times and then to court to change it.
Now the system does not work as well as it could from the standpoint of the teams. The time has arrived for adjustments that create an opportunity to make the game and league better.
The crux of the difference is this: The union accepts the status quo, while the NFL wants to improve and secure the future of the game for the benefit of fans and players.
The status quo means no rookie wage scale and the continuation of outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies instead of shifting significant portions of that money to proven veterans and retired players.
The status quo means four preseason games in spite of the overwhelming rejection of it that by both fans and players.
The status quo means no league investment in new stadium development in Los Angeles and other cities, in international games, or in new technology to improve our service to fans in stadiums and at home.
The status quo means players continue to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, in a good economy or one with 10 percent unemployment, and no matter how much costs have risen for the teams. Player compensation has doubled in the past decade, and the union says NFL team payrolls rose 6 percent this year. Meanwhile, other costs for teams have risen dramatically.
NFL players have an extremely favorable revenue-sharing deal and full access to all information on revenue and a great deal of information on costs, including the largest cost, which is for players. The union has audit rights to all league and team revenue. The problem, however, is not revenue. It is costs. The union knows the problem. Costs must be properly balanced against revenue so that the league and the game can continue to grow. Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they did not properly manage their costs. Our goal is to fix the problem now before it becomes a crisis. That means negotiating a fair agreement that continues to provide billions to the players while also giving the teams a sustainable business model and improving the quality of everything we do.
Why is the current deal so bad, asks the union? Because it does not secure the best possible future for the game, players, clubs and fans. The union has said its "internal deadline" for reaching an agreement has passed. Does that mean the union has abandoned negotiations in favor of de-certification and litigation? We hope not. Rather than litigating and firing misguided salvos about the "shame" of the situation, it would be far more productive and much more in keeping with the interests of teams and fans if the union returned to the bargaining table and made a good-faith effort to reach an agreement before March 4. After that, it is going to become much more difficult.
The new CBA is about the future of the game and doing what's necessary to improve the quality of the game. That means addressing player safety, retired players, preseason, the way we pay rookies and making sure the league's business model works for the future. If we do that, players, teams and fans can continue share in the benefits of growth. The status quo is not acceptable because it will not allow us to build the game with the players as we have done so successfully in the past.
As commissioner Roger Goodell has said, if both sides give a little, everyone will get a lot. (source Greg Aiello is the NFL's Senior Vice President of Public Relations. For more information on NFL collective bargaining issues, go to www.nfllabor.com, via ESPN)
Combine boycott not an option, right now
Tuesday, February 15 2011
DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, held a conference call with player agents Monday, but there weren't any new discussions of a possible boycott of this month's NFL Scouting Combine. This article was written by Jason La Canfora and appeared on nfl.com
"That's tabled," one source said of such discussions.
However, a combine sit-out still could be brought up at a later time, although it's not likely to happen.
Smith advised the agents that he and the NFLPA would continue to fight the use of the franchise tag on players. He also gave a general overview of labor negotiations with the NFL but declined to go into specifics.
While a boycott of the Feb. 24-March 1 combine remains highly doubtful, players skipping the NFL draft in April is likely if no collective bargaining agreement is in place by next month.
Smith has individually met with top agents since the Super Bowl to discuss the potential effectiveness of having prospects skip the combine, as well as refusing to participate in any NFL events surrounding April's draft.
NFL Network insider Albert Breer also reported that the NFLPA will hold its normal meeting with agents on the Friday of combine week, but the union has made this year's meeting mandatory for all agents to have continued certification. In the past, the meeting hasn't been mandatory, but the NFLPA is changing that to emphasize the importance of the situation.
Agents generally must attend one of three NFLPA meetings during the year to maintain their certification.
The league and the union also are exploring the possibility of another CBA negotiating session this week. They had previously set up a date to talk this week, and NFLPA sources said they're waiting to hear back from the league to see if talks will occur.
Last week's talks in Washington broke down, and Thursday's session was cancelled.
Some say they aren't expecting much progress in negotiations between the NFL and the union before the CBA expires March 3.
The union has said it expects owners to lock out players if a new CBA isn't reached by the deadline.
The major issues are how to divide about $9 billion in annual revenues, the owners' push to expand the regular season to 18 games and reduce the preseason by two games, a rookie wage scale and benefits for retired players.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said earlier this month: "There are no deal-breakers."
That includes the league's desire to expand the regular season to 18 games. Goodell said fans repeatedly tell him the quality of preseason games doesn't meet NFL standards.
"That was one of the basis at which we started to look at the 18-2 concept," he said. "I feel an obligation to do the best we can to present the highest quality. If we can't do it right, we won't do it."
The league estimates there would be a cut in gross revenues of $120 million without a new agreement by early March; $350 million if there's no CBA by August, before the preseason starts; $1 billion if no new contract is in place until September. And if regular-season games are lost, the NFL figures the revenue losses would amount to about $400 million per week.
The old deal was agreed to in 2006 and could have been in place until 2012, but owners exercised an opt-out clause in 2008.
DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, held a conference call with player agents Monday, but there weren't any new discussions of a possible boycott of this month's NFL Scouting Combine. This article was written by Jason La Canfora and appeared on nfl.com
"That's tabled," one source said of such discussions.
However, a combine sit-out still could be brought up at a later time, although it's not likely to happen.
Smith advised the agents that he and the NFLPA would continue to fight the use of the franchise tag on players. He also gave a general overview of labor negotiations with the NFL but declined to go into specifics.
While a boycott of the Feb. 24-March 1 combine remains highly doubtful, players skipping the NFL draft in April is likely if no collective bargaining agreement is in place by next month.
Smith has individually met with top agents since the Super Bowl to discuss the potential effectiveness of having prospects skip the combine, as well as refusing to participate in any NFL events surrounding April's draft.
NFL Network insider Albert Breer also reported that the NFLPA will hold its normal meeting with agents on the Friday of combine week, but the union has made this year's meeting mandatory for all agents to have continued certification. In the past, the meeting hasn't been mandatory, but the NFLPA is changing that to emphasize the importance of the situation.
Agents generally must attend one of three NFLPA meetings during the year to maintain their certification.
The league and the union also are exploring the possibility of another CBA negotiating session this week. They had previously set up a date to talk this week, and NFLPA sources said they're waiting to hear back from the league to see if talks will occur.
Last week's talks in Washington broke down, and Thursday's session was cancelled.
Some say they aren't expecting much progress in negotiations between the NFL and the union before the CBA expires March 3.
The union has said it expects owners to lock out players if a new CBA isn't reached by the deadline.
The major issues are how to divide about $9 billion in annual revenues, the owners' push to expand the regular season to 18 games and reduce the preseason by two games, a rookie wage scale and benefits for retired players.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said earlier this month: "There are no deal-breakers."
That includes the league's desire to expand the regular season to 18 games. Goodell said fans repeatedly tell him the quality of preseason games doesn't meet NFL standards.
"That was one of the basis at which we started to look at the 18-2 concept," he said. "I feel an obligation to do the best we can to present the highest quality. If we can't do it right, we won't do it."
The league estimates there would be a cut in gross revenues of $120 million without a new agreement by early March; $350 million if there's no CBA by August, before the preseason starts; $1 billion if no new contract is in place until September. And if regular-season games are lost, the NFL figures the revenue losses would amount to about $400 million per week.
The old deal was agreed to in 2006 and could have been in place until 2012, but owners exercised an opt-out clause in 2008.
Sides "could" meet this week
Tuesday, February 15 2011
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved.
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences. (source ESPN’s Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter)
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved.
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences. (source ESPN’s Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter)
The NFLPA aren't impressed with the owners latest move
Tuesday, February 15 2011
The NFL has filed a complaint against the players’ union, arguing that the NFLPA has refused to bargain in good faith so that the union then can decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit.
The union has responded.
“The players didn’t walk out and the players can’t lockout,” NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told PFT via e-mail. “Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit.”
The league hopes to prevent the union from decertifying so that a lockout could proceed. The fact that the league has made the claim is the clearest evidence yet that a lockout is planned. (source Pro Football Talk)
The NFL has filed a complaint against the players’ union, arguing that the NFLPA has refused to bargain in good faith so that the union then can decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit.
The union has responded.
“The players didn’t walk out and the players can’t lockout,” NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told PFT via e-mail. “Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit.”
The league hopes to prevent the union from decertifying so that a lockout could proceed. The fact that the league has made the claim is the clearest evidence yet that a lockout is planned. (source Pro Football Talk)
A proposal that wasn't a proposal
Tuesday, February 15 2011
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved. This article was written by Chris Mortensen & Adam Schefter and appeared on espn.com
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences.
Player agents have a conference call scheduled for Monday afternoon with Smith.
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved. This article was written by Chris Mortensen & Adam Schefter and appeared on espn.com
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences.
Player agents have a conference call scheduled for Monday afternoon with Smith.
Greed is the word
Monday, February 14 2011
NFL fans want their football, want it every fall and winter, and they're willing to do almost anything to get it, including accept a measure of pain. This article was written by Monte Poole and appeared in The San Jose Mercury News.
Cheerfully aware of this craving, those peddling the game consistently take advantage of these fans, in a classic case of the greedy few exploiting the needy masses.
But the NFL's bully fleecing routine went too far last week at the Super Bowl. By practically defrauding a particularly hardy and devoted group of its followers, the league exposed the cold truth about itself.
It unintentionally let ordinary folks see it for the soulless, heartless machine it really is.
This projects badly in any case, but it's made worse by the timing. The kings who run the league are facing a labor battle in which they want to take money from employees -- the highly trained and heavily muscled gladiators busting up their bodies to earn good salaries, provide owners with great profits and deliver entertainment to fans.
Fans don't want to take sides on the labor issue. They simply want their annual "fix." They crave it so strongly that they'll stretch their budgets to grotesque proportions to financially support their teams.
More than 1,200 such paid a minimum of $600 each for tickets to Super Bowl XLV -- as well as airline tickets and hotels -- only to arrive at Cowboys Stadium last Sunday and be told their seats were unsafe, after which they were sent to watch the game from some place else.
Some were directed to folding chairs in a crowded room at field level, with a view of the backs of players and coaches standing along the sideline.
Others were led to bars, with the NFL offering to cover the cost of food and beverages.
None was pleased with the experience, though, so the NFL has spent the past week choking and coughing on an overdose of richly deserved comeuppance. It offered triple-value refunds and tickets to the next Super Bowl. Then it offered tickets to a future Super Bowl of the fan's choice, as well as paid airfare and accommodations.
I found these proposals perversely satisfying, like watching drug dealers bowing before junkies in hopes of making amends.
But the proposals weren't and aren't enough. When folks paying for the experience of a lifetime wound up receiving the fiasco they'll never forget, they got furious. Their fury led to venting, which led to a $5 million class action lawsuit.
The battered fan syndrome in the NFL has reached its tipping point.
The NFL Players Association has not issued a statement regarding this matter. It shouldn't. It doesn't need to. It's an innocent bystander.
Yet the NFLPA is nonetheless pleased that the league damaged itself by giving the very accurate appearance that its owners, led the Cowboys' Jerry Jones, are driven first and last by ego and profit, and that league's Park Avenue office, where sits the desk of commissioner Roger Goodell, is in lockstep.
The NFL says its desire to increase the schedule from 16 games to 18 is for the fan. Do you, the fan, believe this? It's certainly not for the players, who pay a steep physical price. That's why 82 percent of them rejected the idea in a recent Sports Illustrated poll.
The 18-game schedule is a highway to shorter careers. It's for the league and its bottomless pockets. It's a brazen attempt to grab more revenue from tickets and TV. It's about boundless greed, compounded by unmitigated arrogance.
A few years ago, when Americans were addicted to buying homes, at any price, developers built more homes and banks made them "easier'' to buy. The market was hot, the marketers capitalized and, in the end, millions of buyers were exploited.
The backlash has been fierce, with the consumer absorbing most of the punishment.
We're now hooked on football, particularly the NFL. It's more than twice as popular as MLB, nearly four times more popular than the NBA, according to a 2010 Harris Poll.
Super Bowl XLV, naturally, set another record for TV viewership and now is the latest football game to become the most-watched TV show in history.
The NFL is hotter than ever, and its owners are shameless in their attempts to capitalize. They want to give us more games, make them "easier'' to access.
Those feeding our addiction to the NFL would be wise to consider showing themselves as somehow more decent than the common drug dealer or the white-collar thieves who used economic con games to steal the trust and dreams of so many Americans.
In the wake of this Super Bowl ticket mess, the owners and the commissioner look incredibly selfish -- so much so that if there is no football in 2011, they'll end up choking on an overdose of well-deserved blame.
NFL fans want their football, want it every fall and winter, and they're willing to do almost anything to get it, including accept a measure of pain. This article was written by Monte Poole and appeared in The San Jose Mercury News.
Cheerfully aware of this craving, those peddling the game consistently take advantage of these fans, in a classic case of the greedy few exploiting the needy masses.
But the NFL's bully fleecing routine went too far last week at the Super Bowl. By practically defrauding a particularly hardy and devoted group of its followers, the league exposed the cold truth about itself.
It unintentionally let ordinary folks see it for the soulless, heartless machine it really is.
This projects badly in any case, but it's made worse by the timing. The kings who run the league are facing a labor battle in which they want to take money from employees -- the highly trained and heavily muscled gladiators busting up their bodies to earn good salaries, provide owners with great profits and deliver entertainment to fans.
Fans don't want to take sides on the labor issue. They simply want their annual "fix." They crave it so strongly that they'll stretch their budgets to grotesque proportions to financially support their teams.
More than 1,200 such paid a minimum of $600 each for tickets to Super Bowl XLV -- as well as airline tickets and hotels -- only to arrive at Cowboys Stadium last Sunday and be told their seats were unsafe, after which they were sent to watch the game from some place else.
Some were directed to folding chairs in a crowded room at field level, with a view of the backs of players and coaches standing along the sideline.
Others were led to bars, with the NFL offering to cover the cost of food and beverages.
None was pleased with the experience, though, so the NFL has spent the past week choking and coughing on an overdose of richly deserved comeuppance. It offered triple-value refunds and tickets to the next Super Bowl. Then it offered tickets to a future Super Bowl of the fan's choice, as well as paid airfare and accommodations.
I found these proposals perversely satisfying, like watching drug dealers bowing before junkies in hopes of making amends.
But the proposals weren't and aren't enough. When folks paying for the experience of a lifetime wound up receiving the fiasco they'll never forget, they got furious. Their fury led to venting, which led to a $5 million class action lawsuit.
The battered fan syndrome in the NFL has reached its tipping point.
The NFL Players Association has not issued a statement regarding this matter. It shouldn't. It doesn't need to. It's an innocent bystander.
Yet the NFLPA is nonetheless pleased that the league damaged itself by giving the very accurate appearance that its owners, led the Cowboys' Jerry Jones, are driven first and last by ego and profit, and that league's Park Avenue office, where sits the desk of commissioner Roger Goodell, is in lockstep.
The NFL says its desire to increase the schedule from 16 games to 18 is for the fan. Do you, the fan, believe this? It's certainly not for the players, who pay a steep physical price. That's why 82 percent of them rejected the idea in a recent Sports Illustrated poll.
The 18-game schedule is a highway to shorter careers. It's for the league and its bottomless pockets. It's a brazen attempt to grab more revenue from tickets and TV. It's about boundless greed, compounded by unmitigated arrogance.
A few years ago, when Americans were addicted to buying homes, at any price, developers built more homes and banks made them "easier'' to buy. The market was hot, the marketers capitalized and, in the end, millions of buyers were exploited.
The backlash has been fierce, with the consumer absorbing most of the punishment.
We're now hooked on football, particularly the NFL. It's more than twice as popular as MLB, nearly four times more popular than the NBA, according to a 2010 Harris Poll.
Super Bowl XLV, naturally, set another record for TV viewership and now is the latest football game to become the most-watched TV show in history.
The NFL is hotter than ever, and its owners are shameless in their attempts to capitalize. They want to give us more games, make them "easier'' to access.
Those feeding our addiction to the NFL would be wise to consider showing themselves as somehow more decent than the common drug dealer or the white-collar thieves who used economic con games to steal the trust and dreams of so many Americans.
In the wake of this Super Bowl ticket mess, the owners and the commissioner look incredibly selfish -- so much so that if there is no football in 2011, they'll end up choking on an overdose of well-deserved blame.
Owners and players headed for a "cliff" and SB notes
Monday, February 14 2011
NFL executive Jeff Pash raised the possibility at a Super Bowl news conference that the league could “stop the clock” in the negotiations with the players’ union if progress was being made. This article was written by Vito Stellino and appeared in the Florida Times Union.
“It’s not a Thelma and Louise-type situation where you just go over the cliff and that’s all you can do,” he said.
Well, it now seems that the cliff is in view, and the owners will impose a lockout March 4.
The two sides met last Tuesday, then canceled a session planned for Wednesday. And the owners canceled a meeting scheduled in Philadelphia this week.
What exactly happened at last Tuesday’s meeting is a matter of dispute.
There were reports the union made a proposal for a 50-50 split, which is basically what it has now. Technically, the union gets 60 percent of the revenue, but the owners get $1 billion off the top.
That supposedly prompted the owners to walk out, although the league, which at first refused to make a statement, eventually said that characterization was inaccurate. But it didn’t offer an alternate version.
Sports Business Journal reported the negotiators downplayed the cancellation of the session in a conference call with the owners.
“These kinds of things — ups and downs, bad sessions and good ones — are an inevitable part of a messy process,” a management source was quoted as saying. “It is like watching the sausage being made. It is 'normal' in that sense.”
The problem is that the two sides don’t appear to be making any sausage.
“If we put the effort into negotiating that we have put into litigating, news conferences and pep rallies and everything else, we really could get something accomplished,” Pash said.
Assistants have issues
The league’s labor troubles won’t be over even if it gets a new collective bargaining agreement with the players.
The assistant coaches have their issues, but they have decided to put them on the back burner while the owners deal with the players. If the league doesn’t eventually address their issues, the assistant coaches would consider forming a union.
Larry Kennan, the head of the assistant coaches’ association, said the major concern is that 11 teams, including the Jaguars, have dropped the defined benefit pension program for coaches and front-office personnel.
He said it is not good for the league because the teams that kept a pension program will have an advantage in attracting coaches.
“It will affect competitive balance over a period of time,” he said.
Another issue is not letting coaches interview for jobs that are promotions. For example, the Jets denied permission for the Titans to interview offensive line coach Bill Callahan for the offensive coordinator’s job.
They’re also unhappy about the Jaguars’ assistants being on one-year contracts and yet being denied permission to interview for lateral jobs and that the Jaguars’ assistants pay for part of their health coverage, which is fully funded by some teams.
Owner Wayne Weaver said last week that he talked to the assistants and told them he’s never had a contract in his life.
Kennan said, “But we have contracts.”
Where's Jerry?
Jerry Jones is usually one of the most visible owners in the league. He even held his own Super Bowl news conference as the host owner.
But Jones has been invisible since the temporary seating fiasco, and now the question is who gets the blame.
The head of the company hired to install the seating, Scott Suprina of Seating Solutions, told Newsday he is being made a scapegoat.
“I think it’s an effort to hang somebody with the blame, clear the NFL, to let their fans have someone to be angry at,” he said.
Suprina said his workers didn’t have enough access to the stadium, and the ice and snow storms also slowed things down.
Still, the fans are upset at the NFL and have filed a class-action lawsuit against the league. And the way the league handled the situation was inexcusable.
One Packers fan, Peter D’Amico, told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that he arrived at the stadium at 10 a.m., 7 1/2 hours before kickoff. He received tickets a half hour before kickoff.
That was after being sent a few blocks to a ticket resolution center, then sent to the Texas Rangers’ main ticket office a mile away and then back to the ticket resolution center.
He said no one from the league or the Cowboys ever addressed the 1,200 fans to explain the situation with a microphone. Fans in the back of the crowd couldn’t hear.
D’Amico said it eventually became a “riot-type atmosphere” and he estimated that 200 to 300 fans got into the stadium by storming a fence.
The NFL’s answer to all this?
League executive Eric Grubman appeared on “ProFootballTalkLive” and suggested, “I think we need to keep this in perspective.” He noted 160 million fans watched the game. He said lawyers suing the NFL should “work on something like world peace.”
Huh?
It is that kind of attitude that created this mess in the first place. The NFL just didn’t get it that a once-in-a-lifetime trip for many fans was ruined.
Colts are on the clock
Last year, Jones talked openly about being the first team to play in the Super Bowl on its home stadium turf.
That didn’t work out too well as the Cowboys started out 1-7 and finished 6-10.
With the Super Bowl scheduled to be played in Indianapolis next February — assuming there is a season — Colts owner Jim Irsay isn’t making any bold statements.
“Honestly, I don’t even think of that [being first team to play the game in its home stadium],” Irsay said to the Indianapolis Star. “I’m not starting a mantra that didn’t work out well last year [for Dallas].”
Indianapolis figures to do better than Dallas in hosting the game. Even if there is bad weather, the city is used to dealing with it. The stadium, both teams and the media will all be downtown and many of the facilities are connected and within walking distance.
“It’s an outstanding opportunity for our city and our state,” Irsay said. “It’s something we want to do right and will do right.”
Topping the Dallas effort shouldn’t be too difficult.
Interesting Demographics
One of the interesting sidelights of the Super Bowl is that it draws a much bigger female audience than the NFL gets for the regular season.
During the regular season, only 33.5 percent of the viewers are women. For the Super Bowl, 51.2 million of the 111 million total viewers were women. Last year, 48.5 million women watched, and 44.1 million watched the previous year.
The league is also doing better with minorities. The Hispanic audience increased from 8.3 million last year to 10 million and the black audience from 11.2 million to 12.5 million.
To show how the demographics of America are changing, that means more women and minorities watched the game than white males.
NFL executive Jeff Pash raised the possibility at a Super Bowl news conference that the league could “stop the clock” in the negotiations with the players’ union if progress was being made. This article was written by Vito Stellino and appeared in the Florida Times Union.
“It’s not a Thelma and Louise-type situation where you just go over the cliff and that’s all you can do,” he said.
Well, it now seems that the cliff is in view, and the owners will impose a lockout March 4.
The two sides met last Tuesday, then canceled a session planned for Wednesday. And the owners canceled a meeting scheduled in Philadelphia this week.
What exactly happened at last Tuesday’s meeting is a matter of dispute.
There were reports the union made a proposal for a 50-50 split, which is basically what it has now. Technically, the union gets 60 percent of the revenue, but the owners get $1 billion off the top.
That supposedly prompted the owners to walk out, although the league, which at first refused to make a statement, eventually said that characterization was inaccurate. But it didn’t offer an alternate version.
Sports Business Journal reported the negotiators downplayed the cancellation of the session in a conference call with the owners.
“These kinds of things — ups and downs, bad sessions and good ones — are an inevitable part of a messy process,” a management source was quoted as saying. “It is like watching the sausage being made. It is 'normal' in that sense.”
The problem is that the two sides don’t appear to be making any sausage.
“If we put the effort into negotiating that we have put into litigating, news conferences and pep rallies and everything else, we really could get something accomplished,” Pash said.
Assistants have issues
The league’s labor troubles won’t be over even if it gets a new collective bargaining agreement with the players.
The assistant coaches have their issues, but they have decided to put them on the back burner while the owners deal with the players. If the league doesn’t eventually address their issues, the assistant coaches would consider forming a union.
Larry Kennan, the head of the assistant coaches’ association, said the major concern is that 11 teams, including the Jaguars, have dropped the defined benefit pension program for coaches and front-office personnel.
He said it is not good for the league because the teams that kept a pension program will have an advantage in attracting coaches.
“It will affect competitive balance over a period of time,” he said.
Another issue is not letting coaches interview for jobs that are promotions. For example, the Jets denied permission for the Titans to interview offensive line coach Bill Callahan for the offensive coordinator’s job.
They’re also unhappy about the Jaguars’ assistants being on one-year contracts and yet being denied permission to interview for lateral jobs and that the Jaguars’ assistants pay for part of their health coverage, which is fully funded by some teams.
Owner Wayne Weaver said last week that he talked to the assistants and told them he’s never had a contract in his life.
Kennan said, “But we have contracts.”
Where's Jerry?
Jerry Jones is usually one of the most visible owners in the league. He even held his own Super Bowl news conference as the host owner.
But Jones has been invisible since the temporary seating fiasco, and now the question is who gets the blame.
The head of the company hired to install the seating, Scott Suprina of Seating Solutions, told Newsday he is being made a scapegoat.
“I think it’s an effort to hang somebody with the blame, clear the NFL, to let their fans have someone to be angry at,” he said.
Suprina said his workers didn’t have enough access to the stadium, and the ice and snow storms also slowed things down.
Still, the fans are upset at the NFL and have filed a class-action lawsuit against the league. And the way the league handled the situation was inexcusable.
One Packers fan, Peter D’Amico, told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that he arrived at the stadium at 10 a.m., 7 1/2 hours before kickoff. He received tickets a half hour before kickoff.
That was after being sent a few blocks to a ticket resolution center, then sent to the Texas Rangers’ main ticket office a mile away and then back to the ticket resolution center.
He said no one from the league or the Cowboys ever addressed the 1,200 fans to explain the situation with a microphone. Fans in the back of the crowd couldn’t hear.
D’Amico said it eventually became a “riot-type atmosphere” and he estimated that 200 to 300 fans got into the stadium by storming a fence.
The NFL’s answer to all this?
League executive Eric Grubman appeared on “ProFootballTalkLive” and suggested, “I think we need to keep this in perspective.” He noted 160 million fans watched the game. He said lawyers suing the NFL should “work on something like world peace.”
Huh?
It is that kind of attitude that created this mess in the first place. The NFL just didn’t get it that a once-in-a-lifetime trip for many fans was ruined.
Colts are on the clock
Last year, Jones talked openly about being the first team to play in the Super Bowl on its home stadium turf.
That didn’t work out too well as the Cowboys started out 1-7 and finished 6-10.
With the Super Bowl scheduled to be played in Indianapolis next February — assuming there is a season — Colts owner Jim Irsay isn’t making any bold statements.
“Honestly, I don’t even think of that [being first team to play the game in its home stadium],” Irsay said to the Indianapolis Star. “I’m not starting a mantra that didn’t work out well last year [for Dallas].”
Indianapolis figures to do better than Dallas in hosting the game. Even if there is bad weather, the city is used to dealing with it. The stadium, both teams and the media will all be downtown and many of the facilities are connected and within walking distance.
“It’s an outstanding opportunity for our city and our state,” Irsay said. “It’s something we want to do right and will do right.”
Topping the Dallas effort shouldn’t be too difficult.
Interesting Demographics
One of the interesting sidelights of the Super Bowl is that it draws a much bigger female audience than the NFL gets for the regular season.
During the regular season, only 33.5 percent of the viewers are women. For the Super Bowl, 51.2 million of the 111 million total viewers were women. Last year, 48.5 million women watched, and 44.1 million watched the previous year.
The league is also doing better with minorities. The Hispanic audience increased from 8.3 million last year to 10 million and the black audience from 11.2 million to 12.5 million.
To show how the demographics of America are changing, that means more women and minorities watched the game than white males.
Saving 2011 season still #1 priority for Goodell
Monday, February 14 2011
In the public relations rhetoric between the NFL Management Council and NFL Players Association over a new collective-bargaining agreement, both sides must agree with something commissioner Roger Goodell said before Super Bowl XLV. This article was written by John McClain and appeared in the Houston Chronicle.
"What I hear from fans is that they just want football, and the fans aren't forgotten here," Goodell said about the negotiations. "They care about just getting an agreement. They don't care about the details. They want to make sure they have the great game they love.
"That's our responsibility, and I don't think anyone is going to feel sorry for any of us, including yours truly, if we're not successful at doing that."
Representatives of the owners and players met two times in a five-day period over the last two weeks. No progress was reported. Both parties left the talks early on Wednesday because of a lack of progress. A session planned for Thursday was canceled.
The current CBA expires on March 3. Several things could happen on March 4.
The most likely scenario is that the owners lock out the players. That would mean no communication between teams and players until a new agreement is signed.
If round-the-clock negotiations occur before the deadline, as expected, the owners could declare an impasse and implement their best offer during negotiations. If the players accept , a normal offseason would continue.
If the owners declare an impasse and the players don't accept it, the players would go on strike.
What's least likely is the owners doing nothing on March 4 other than continuing negotiations. Players would become free agents, and roster bonuses due in March would have to be paid.
"If we're unsuccessful in getting an agreement by March 4, I expect the uncertainty will continue," Goodell said. "(It) will be bad for our partners. It will be bad for the players, (and) it will be bad for the clubs.
"That uncertainty will lead to a reduction, potentially, in revenue, and when that revenue decreases, there will be less for us to share. That will just make it harder to make an agreement.
"A series of things will happen in March if we're not successful. There will not be free agency, which will impact on the players. There will be a number of things that I'm sure both sides will consider that, strategically, I believe will move us away from the negotiating table rather than toward the negotiating table."
In 1982, a strike cost the NFL seven regular-season games. In 1987, a strike cost the league four games, even though three were made up with replacement players.
Steelers owner Dan Rooney played a major role in helping settle the strikes of 1982 and 1987, but he's the U.S. ambassador to Ireland and not as involved with the game as he once was.
Because players are paid their base salaries over 17 weeks in the regular season, they won't miss being paid until then. But many are paid roster bonuses in March they won't receive. Players will have to pay their own insurance through COBRA.
Ready for battle
Both sides say they are well-stocked for a work stoppage. The owners are supposed to have a $900 million war chest. They will receive their regular network television payment, which would have to be paid back with interest if games were missed. Each saved $10 million by not having to fund the players' 401(k) program in 2010, an uncapped year.
If there is a lockout, there will be no OTAs, minicamps, training camp, preseason or regular season until a new agreement is reached.
Most teams would have coaches and executives working at 50 percent of their salaries if games are canceled.
Widespread impact
A lockout would touch a lot of people besides players and owners. Television networks, sponsors, ticket holders, employees at stadiums and practice facilities, among others, would be affected in different ways.
Teams are expected to lay off administrative personnel.
"When you make decisions on personnel — and I've had to make them in our organization two years ago when we were going through some difficult times in the economy - there are still difficult economic challenges," Goodell said. "All of our clubs, and the league, and every other business, have to make very tough decisions in this kind of environment.
"No one likes to see our employees let go, (but) when you're dealing with employees and their future, there's nothing harder to do. We want to make sure that we're making smart decisions for our employees, our players, our clubs, for the long term, and make sure that we can continue to have a successful product."
In the negotiations, the owners are seeking a reduction in player revenue by 18 percent (more than $1 billion), an 18-game schedule and a rookie wage scale.
"I've frequently said this will get resolved at the negotiating table," Goodell said. "All of the other public relations, litigation strategies, congressional strategies - this is about a negotiation. We have to address the issues and find solutions."
In the public relations rhetoric between the NFL Management Council and NFL Players Association over a new collective-bargaining agreement, both sides must agree with something commissioner Roger Goodell said before Super Bowl XLV. This article was written by John McClain and appeared in the Houston Chronicle.
"What I hear from fans is that they just want football, and the fans aren't forgotten here," Goodell said about the negotiations. "They care about just getting an agreement. They don't care about the details. They want to make sure they have the great game they love.
"That's our responsibility, and I don't think anyone is going to feel sorry for any of us, including yours truly, if we're not successful at doing that."
Representatives of the owners and players met two times in a five-day period over the last two weeks. No progress was reported. Both parties left the talks early on Wednesday because of a lack of progress. A session planned for Thursday was canceled.
The current CBA expires on March 3. Several things could happen on March 4.
The most likely scenario is that the owners lock out the players. That would mean no communication between teams and players until a new agreement is signed.
If round-the-clock negotiations occur before the deadline, as expected, the owners could declare an impasse and implement their best offer during negotiations. If the players accept , a normal offseason would continue.
If the owners declare an impasse and the players don't accept it, the players would go on strike.
What's least likely is the owners doing nothing on March 4 other than continuing negotiations. Players would become free agents, and roster bonuses due in March would have to be paid.
"If we're unsuccessful in getting an agreement by March 4, I expect the uncertainty will continue," Goodell said. "(It) will be bad for our partners. It will be bad for the players, (and) it will be bad for the clubs.
"That uncertainty will lead to a reduction, potentially, in revenue, and when that revenue decreases, there will be less for us to share. That will just make it harder to make an agreement.
"A series of things will happen in March if we're not successful. There will not be free agency, which will impact on the players. There will be a number of things that I'm sure both sides will consider that, strategically, I believe will move us away from the negotiating table rather than toward the negotiating table."
In 1982, a strike cost the NFL seven regular-season games. In 1987, a strike cost the league four games, even though three were made up with replacement players.
Steelers owner Dan Rooney played a major role in helping settle the strikes of 1982 and 1987, but he's the U.S. ambassador to Ireland and not as involved with the game as he once was.
Because players are paid their base salaries over 17 weeks in the regular season, they won't miss being paid until then. But many are paid roster bonuses in March they won't receive. Players will have to pay their own insurance through COBRA.
Ready for battle
Both sides say they are well-stocked for a work stoppage. The owners are supposed to have a $900 million war chest. They will receive their regular network television payment, which would have to be paid back with interest if games were missed. Each saved $10 million by not having to fund the players' 401(k) program in 2010, an uncapped year.
If there is a lockout, there will be no OTAs, minicamps, training camp, preseason or regular season until a new agreement is reached.
Most teams would have coaches and executives working at 50 percent of their salaries if games are canceled.
Widespread impact
A lockout would touch a lot of people besides players and owners. Television networks, sponsors, ticket holders, employees at stadiums and practice facilities, among others, would be affected in different ways.
Teams are expected to lay off administrative personnel.
"When you make decisions on personnel — and I've had to make them in our organization two years ago when we were going through some difficult times in the economy - there are still difficult economic challenges," Goodell said. "All of our clubs, and the league, and every other business, have to make very tough decisions in this kind of environment.
"No one likes to see our employees let go, (but) when you're dealing with employees and their future, there's nothing harder to do. We want to make sure that we're making smart decisions for our employees, our players, our clubs, for the long term, and make sure that we can continue to have a successful product."
In the negotiations, the owners are seeking a reduction in player revenue by 18 percent (more than $1 billion), an 18-game schedule and a rookie wage scale.
"I've frequently said this will get resolved at the negotiating table," Goodell said. "All of the other public relations, litigation strategies, congressional strategies - this is about a negotiation. We have to address the issues and find solutions."
Lockout an inevitability
Monday, February 14 2011
On the bright side, the approaching NFL lockout might offer extra rehab time for injured Broncos receivers Eddie Royal and Demaryius Thomas, who face extended recoveries from major injuries. This article was written by Dave Krieger and appeared in The Denver Post.
Other than that, there's not much reason for optimism after the owners walked out of the negotiations they had demanded this week. Nineteen days from the end of the current agreement, with no new talks scheduled, a lockout beginning March 4 looks like a lock.
The conventional wisdom is it's a battle between billionaire owners and millionaire players, with the public unlikely to have much sympathy for either. In fact, it's beginning to look more like billionaire owners against the world — players, related businesses poised to suffer collateral damage and pretty much anyone who balks at a $9 beer.
Considering all their high-priced legal and public relations help, it's stunning how badly the owners are bungling their end of the PR war before the labor war even gets going.
The stage was set by the ticket fiasco in Dallas at the Super Bowl, where nearly 2,000 fans who forked over small fortunes for tickets, transportation and accommodations were told their seats at the game were . . . uh . . . unavailable.
In fact, the temporary seating they were supposed to occupy had to be covered with a tarpaulin after it failed a safety inspection by the fire marshal. About 400 ticket-holders ended up watching the game on TV. Since then, the NFL has been patting itself on the back for offering compensation after the fact.
Somewhere along the way, commissioner Roger Goodell's bleating about the NFL fan experience began to sound a little hollow.
Why would the league put its reputation on the line for a few extra seats? Well, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones wanted to break the record for Super Bowl attendance. Alas, because of that pesky fire marshal, the number of fans who could actually see the field fell just short. But at least the league has its priorities straight.
Then there was Goodell's demand at his news conference the Friday before the game that owners and players negotiate intensively to reach a new labor agreement by the March 3 expiration of the current deal.
The union agreed. The two sides met the Saturday before the game and again Wednesday, at which point the owners — Goodell's side — walked out, canceling Thursday's scheduled session.
Why? Well, the players proposed a 50-50 split of all revenues. Essentially, this would preserve the status quo. That may be unacceptable to owners, but it's hardly outrageous as the players' initial position.
The owners walked because they consider it a given that the revenue split must shift in their favor because of . . . well . . . you know . . . stuff.
Prove it, say the players. You're signing record TV deals. You're soaking the fan at every turn. We're the ones getting our heads knocked in. If you have genuine financial issues, open your books and show us.
Goodell and the owners dismiss this as a bargaining ploy, but their evasions don't pass the smell test. If you're going to claim you can't survive under the existing agreement when your league is an $8 billion profit machine and your stadiums, many of them publicly funded, offer luxuries Marie Antoinette would envy, you need to prove your case. Goodell's disdainful insistence that the players take his word for it makes him look like a patronizing patrician.
Meanwhile, after treating head injuries the way the tobacco industry treated cancer for many years, Goodell turned suddenly pious recently, declaring the health of players and former players a big deal. But not so big as to prevent the league from proposing to extend the season by two games.
You don't have to be a mediator to know that threatening players with a lockout if they don't agree to play more games for a smaller slice of the revenue pie while your league is booming might look a little like extortion, especially when you're unwilling to open your books to show why it's necessary.
In the end, the owners have the money — and the continuing football income from TV contracts that pay even if there are no games — to outlast the players. History shows that eventually the players will come crawling back, accepting whatever terms are available, when they run out of money.
But that could take a while. New union chief DeMaurice Smith will strenuously resist beginning his tenure with an unnecessary capitulation, and the owners aren't yet offering even a face-saving tradeoff.
So settle in. If the players are sufficiently determined, Thomas' torn Achilles tendon may be healed by the time the billionaires get what they want.
On the bright side, the approaching NFL lockout might offer extra rehab time for injured Broncos receivers Eddie Royal and Demaryius Thomas, who face extended recoveries from major injuries. This article was written by Dave Krieger and appeared in The Denver Post.
Other than that, there's not much reason for optimism after the owners walked out of the negotiations they had demanded this week. Nineteen days from the end of the current agreement, with no new talks scheduled, a lockout beginning March 4 looks like a lock.
The conventional wisdom is it's a battle between billionaire owners and millionaire players, with the public unlikely to have much sympathy for either. In fact, it's beginning to look more like billionaire owners against the world — players, related businesses poised to suffer collateral damage and pretty much anyone who balks at a $9 beer.
Considering all their high-priced legal and public relations help, it's stunning how badly the owners are bungling their end of the PR war before the labor war even gets going.
The stage was set by the ticket fiasco in Dallas at the Super Bowl, where nearly 2,000 fans who forked over small fortunes for tickets, transportation and accommodations were told their seats at the game were . . . uh . . . unavailable.
In fact, the temporary seating they were supposed to occupy had to be covered with a tarpaulin after it failed a safety inspection by the fire marshal. About 400 ticket-holders ended up watching the game on TV. Since then, the NFL has been patting itself on the back for offering compensation after the fact.
Somewhere along the way, commissioner Roger Goodell's bleating about the NFL fan experience began to sound a little hollow.
Why would the league put its reputation on the line for a few extra seats? Well, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones wanted to break the record for Super Bowl attendance. Alas, because of that pesky fire marshal, the number of fans who could actually see the field fell just short. But at least the league has its priorities straight.
Then there was Goodell's demand at his news conference the Friday before the game that owners and players negotiate intensively to reach a new labor agreement by the March 3 expiration of the current deal.
The union agreed. The two sides met the Saturday before the game and again Wednesday, at which point the owners — Goodell's side — walked out, canceling Thursday's scheduled session.
Why? Well, the players proposed a 50-50 split of all revenues. Essentially, this would preserve the status quo. That may be unacceptable to owners, but it's hardly outrageous as the players' initial position.
The owners walked because they consider it a given that the revenue split must shift in their favor because of . . . well . . . you know . . . stuff.
Prove it, say the players. You're signing record TV deals. You're soaking the fan at every turn. We're the ones getting our heads knocked in. If you have genuine financial issues, open your books and show us.
Goodell and the owners dismiss this as a bargaining ploy, but their evasions don't pass the smell test. If you're going to claim you can't survive under the existing agreement when your league is an $8 billion profit machine and your stadiums, many of them publicly funded, offer luxuries Marie Antoinette would envy, you need to prove your case. Goodell's disdainful insistence that the players take his word for it makes him look like a patronizing patrician.
Meanwhile, after treating head injuries the way the tobacco industry treated cancer for many years, Goodell turned suddenly pious recently, declaring the health of players and former players a big deal. But not so big as to prevent the league from proposing to extend the season by two games.
You don't have to be a mediator to know that threatening players with a lockout if they don't agree to play more games for a smaller slice of the revenue pie while your league is booming might look a little like extortion, especially when you're unwilling to open your books to show why it's necessary.
In the end, the owners have the money — and the continuing football income from TV contracts that pay even if there are no games — to outlast the players. History shows that eventually the players will come crawling back, accepting whatever terms are available, when they run out of money.
But that could take a while. New union chief DeMaurice Smith will strenuously resist beginning his tenure with an unnecessary capitulation, and the owners aren't yet offering even a face-saving tradeoff.
So settle in. If the players are sufficiently determined, Thomas' torn Achilles tendon may be healed by the time the billionaires get what they want.
Two Lions players expect NFL lockout
Monday, February 14 2011
After one bargaining session between the NFL and its players union was cut short and another cancelled this week, two Lions from last season said they believe a lockout is coming next month but that the season can be saved.
"I was telling my dad (the other day), I would be shocked if we don't play football next year," kicker Dave Rayner said. "I mean, I'd be shocked. I don't think they'll get everything done by March 3 or even by the time we start off-season workouts, but I would hope we would get it done in the next month or two. I just think there would be so much of a loss for everybody if we don't play."
The NFL's labor agreement expires at 12:01 a.m. March 4, and owners are expected to lock out players -- and delay the start of free agency -- without a new deal.
Rayner, who likely will be an unrestricted free agent if he doesn't re-sign with the Lions in the next three weeks, said the players association has been keeping its members updated on negotiations with regular e-mails.
"I couldn't tell you which side is winning or losing," Rayner said. "But I know that I speak for a lot of the guys: We just want to play."
Cornerback Eric King, released by the Lions along with offensive guard Trevor Canfield on Thursday, said he believes a deal "will get done before the season," but after a lockout.
"I don't think it'll be something that'll be done within the upcoming months as far as March or April," King said. "I think we're far enough apart whereas something has to be worked out, and it will take a little bit of time. Both sides are still trying to figure out what they want and how they want it in. It'll take some time to get it worked out, but I'm pretty confident there'll still be football in 2011." This article was written by Dave Birkett and appeared in the Detroit Free Press.
After one bargaining session between the NFL and its players union was cut short and another cancelled this week, two Lions from last season said they believe a lockout is coming next month but that the season can be saved.
"I was telling my dad (the other day), I would be shocked if we don't play football next year," kicker Dave Rayner said. "I mean, I'd be shocked. I don't think they'll get everything done by March 3 or even by the time we start off-season workouts, but I would hope we would get it done in the next month or two. I just think there would be so much of a loss for everybody if we don't play."
The NFL's labor agreement expires at 12:01 a.m. March 4, and owners are expected to lock out players -- and delay the start of free agency -- without a new deal.
Rayner, who likely will be an unrestricted free agent if he doesn't re-sign with the Lions in the next three weeks, said the players association has been keeping its members updated on negotiations with regular e-mails.
"I couldn't tell you which side is winning or losing," Rayner said. "But I know that I speak for a lot of the guys: We just want to play."
Cornerback Eric King, released by the Lions along with offensive guard Trevor Canfield on Thursday, said he believes a deal "will get done before the season," but after a lockout.
"I don't think it'll be something that'll be done within the upcoming months as far as March or April," King said. "I think we're far enough apart whereas something has to be worked out, and it will take a little bit of time. Both sides are still trying to figure out what they want and how they want it in. It'll take some time to get it worked out, but I'm pretty confident there'll still be football in 2011." This article was written by Dave Birkett and appeared in the Detroit Free Press.
Tom Brady's agent has solution for CBA negotiations
Monday, February 14 2011
Tom Brady's agent thinks he has a solution for an 18-game NFL regular season: Limit how many games each player can suit up. This article was written by Barry Willner and appeared in the Miami Herald.
The players' union opposes expanding the season by two games, one of the main sticking points in negotiations with the league for a new collective bargaining agreement.
Though agent Don Yee believes 18 games mean more bodily punishment, leading to shorter careers and possibly shorter life spans, he had these suggestions for making the change more acceptable:
-Increase the roster from 53 players to 58, and make all eligible to play on game day; currently, only 45 can play.
-Institute a rule that prohibits any player from appearing in more than 16 games.
"This compromise will create even more interest from fans," Yee said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "What two games will the head coach sit the starting QB? That's a discussion that will set sports talk radio airwaves afire.
"This compromise will also be popular with coaches and general managers who want a greater opportunity to develop younger players," he said. "The NFL doesn't have a minor league, and this compromise will force meaningful participation by younger players on the roster.
"Players also would endorse this because each would effectively get two bye weeks during the year. Bye weeks afford important healing time and personal time away from the game."
Yee sees a lengthened regular season as a virtual free revenue stream for the league.
"The owners want two more regular-season games to sell to television networks, and give their own NFL Network more games. More games mean more money. And the NFL Network is a growing asset owners don't share with the players," he said.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league had no comment on the proposals.
In addition to Brady, New England's quarterback and the NFL MVP, Yee represents New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton and is an adjunct law professor at Southern Cal and a visiting law professor at his alma mater, Virginia.
Jeopardizing the 2011 season because of the 18-game proposal and spending too much money on rookies "is ludicrous because both issues are easily solvable. And if they aren't quickly solved, the owners and players will be insulting the intelligence of football fans everywhere."
Yee addressed misspent money on draft picks, saying: "Each year brings high-profile rookies who end up making a lot of money and contributing very little. The Oakland Raiders' experience with JaMarcus Russell infuriated many and is the owners' 'Exhibit A.'
"But JaMarcus Russell didn't draft himself in the first round. The Raiders did. And Russell didn't write himself a check for more than $30 million guaranteed dollars. The Raiders did, and did so willingly.
"Every NFL team has a JaMarcus Russell story. Now the owners want the players to bail them out of this situation."
Yee suggests the solution is drafting more wisely.
"There really isn't any excuse for significant blunders like Russell," Yee said. "NFL draft choices undergo a level of scrutiny that would make a TSA agent blush. Every potential draft pick's personal, social and academic history is analyzed, sometimes by former FBI agents employed by the league or team. Their entire medical histories are revealed. Every game and practice is available on tape. Psychological profiles and intelligence tests are given.
"The prospects also participate in all-star games and the NFL combine. Yet, poor decisions happen every year. An obvious conclusion is that some teams employ poor decision makers, and this is within the owners' control to fix, not the players'."
Yee also advises teams who don't think a player is worth the money he's slotted to receive when that team's turn to choose arrives, pass on the pick. He admits it "takes guts," but notes a substantial portion of the New England Patriots' roster is made up of undrafted players. Teams don't necessarily need a roster full of high draft picks to win.
Another suggestion: If a draft pick is demanding too much money, don't pay it. History shows when teams have done that, they usually are right.
"In 1979, the Buffalo Bills made Tom Cousineau the first pick in the entire draft," Yee said. "The Bills refused to pay Cousineau what he was being offered by a Canadian Football League team. Cousineau went to Canada and on to a modestly successful pro career. The Bills did OK, too. Shortly after rejecting Cousineau's demands, they went to four Super Bowls."
Other issues in the bargaining process involve, among others, treatment of retired players and continuing health care coverage for those who leave the game.
"But paying rookie players and having a longer season shouldn't be the impediment to an exciting 2011 season," Yee said.
Tom Brady's agent thinks he has a solution for an 18-game NFL regular season: Limit how many games each player can suit up. This article was written by Barry Willner and appeared in the Miami Herald.
The players' union opposes expanding the season by two games, one of the main sticking points in negotiations with the league for a new collective bargaining agreement.
Though agent Don Yee believes 18 games mean more bodily punishment, leading to shorter careers and possibly shorter life spans, he had these suggestions for making the change more acceptable:
-Increase the roster from 53 players to 58, and make all eligible to play on game day; currently, only 45 can play.
-Institute a rule that prohibits any player from appearing in more than 16 games.
"This compromise will create even more interest from fans," Yee said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "What two games will the head coach sit the starting QB? That's a discussion that will set sports talk radio airwaves afire.
"This compromise will also be popular with coaches and general managers who want a greater opportunity to develop younger players," he said. "The NFL doesn't have a minor league, and this compromise will force meaningful participation by younger players on the roster.
"Players also would endorse this because each would effectively get two bye weeks during the year. Bye weeks afford important healing time and personal time away from the game."
Yee sees a lengthened regular season as a virtual free revenue stream for the league.
"The owners want two more regular-season games to sell to television networks, and give their own NFL Network more games. More games mean more money. And the NFL Network is a growing asset owners don't share with the players," he said.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league had no comment on the proposals.
In addition to Brady, New England's quarterback and the NFL MVP, Yee represents New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton and is an adjunct law professor at Southern Cal and a visiting law professor at his alma mater, Virginia.
Jeopardizing the 2011 season because of the 18-game proposal and spending too much money on rookies "is ludicrous because both issues are easily solvable. And if they aren't quickly solved, the owners and players will be insulting the intelligence of football fans everywhere."
Yee addressed misspent money on draft picks, saying: "Each year brings high-profile rookies who end up making a lot of money and contributing very little. The Oakland Raiders' experience with JaMarcus Russell infuriated many and is the owners' 'Exhibit A.'
"But JaMarcus Russell didn't draft himself in the first round. The Raiders did. And Russell didn't write himself a check for more than $30 million guaranteed dollars. The Raiders did, and did so willingly.
"Every NFL team has a JaMarcus Russell story. Now the owners want the players to bail them out of this situation."
Yee suggests the solution is drafting more wisely.
"There really isn't any excuse for significant blunders like Russell," Yee said. "NFL draft choices undergo a level of scrutiny that would make a TSA agent blush. Every potential draft pick's personal, social and academic history is analyzed, sometimes by former FBI agents employed by the league or team. Their entire medical histories are revealed. Every game and practice is available on tape. Psychological profiles and intelligence tests are given.
"The prospects also participate in all-star games and the NFL combine. Yet, poor decisions happen every year. An obvious conclusion is that some teams employ poor decision makers, and this is within the owners' control to fix, not the players'."
Yee also advises teams who don't think a player is worth the money he's slotted to receive when that team's turn to choose arrives, pass on the pick. He admits it "takes guts," but notes a substantial portion of the New England Patriots' roster is made up of undrafted players. Teams don't necessarily need a roster full of high draft picks to win.
Another suggestion: If a draft pick is demanding too much money, don't pay it. History shows when teams have done that, they usually are right.
"In 1979, the Buffalo Bills made Tom Cousineau the first pick in the entire draft," Yee said. "The Bills refused to pay Cousineau what he was being offered by a Canadian Football League team. Cousineau went to Canada and on to a modestly successful pro career. The Bills did OK, too. Shortly after rejecting Cousineau's demands, they went to four Super Bowls."
Other issues in the bargaining process involve, among others, treatment of retired players and continuing health care coverage for those who leave the game.
"But paying rookie players and having a longer season shouldn't be the impediment to an exciting 2011 season," Yee said.
Will Goodell be the good guy or the bad guy?
Monday, February 14 2011
Unhappy people will be everywhere and there will be chaos, and this is not a story about Egypt. If the NFL closes its doors and goes dark, Roger Goodell might be remembered as the bad guy. This article was written by Matt Youmans and appeared in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
It's not just one guy, of course. But if a lockout becomes reality, Goodell, the league's commissioner since 2006 and the leader of the greedy owners, could be held responsible for not preventing a potential major league catastrophe.
As Tony Montana said, make way for the bad guy. People want to point fingers and say, "That's the bad guy."
Some will point fingers at the greedy players, and some won't care who's to blame. We just want to watch and wager on NFL games on Sundays and Mondays, and Nevada sports books need the business.
"You don't even like to think about it," Jimmy Vaccaro, director of operations for Lucky's sports books, said of an NFL blackout. "Obviously, it has a huge effect."
News arrived Thursday that labor talks collapsed between league representatives and the NFL Players Association. A bargaining session was canceled, and Goodell called off an owners meeting set for next week. The talking heads on ESPN are saying a lockout is likely with the collective bargaining agreement expiring March 3.
Only the naive are surprised to hear it.
"There is always a lot of public posturing in these negotiations," said Robert Walker, retired MGM Mirage sports book director. "I am hoping there will be no work stoppage. I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and this gets done. I believe that it will."
Eventually a deal will get done, but if a lockout extends into July, Las Vegas casinos could start counting losses.
"I don't make it a favorite for the NFL to start on time," Vaccaro said. "Although we're not allowed to book those type of events, I would book that we don't see preseason football and make that a small favorite.
"I hope it gets done. But the longer it drags on, it will have some effect. With the books, we've become dependent to some degree on coming to football season. Normal people start planning their vacations in June and July, and (no NFL) hurts the whole experience of people coming to town."
As of today, it still feels like business as usual. We're regrouping and resting after a long season, and the Las Vegas Hilton has odds to win next year's Super Bowl on the board.
"Can the Packers repeat?" Vaccaro said.
The Hilton posted New England as the 5-1 favorite, followed by Green Bay (6-1) and Pittsburgh (8-1). The Packers have a solid shot to repeat if Aaron Rodgers is their quarterback. If they have a replacement quarterback, who knows?
Vaccaro was a Las Vegas bookmaker in 1987, when a 24-day players' strike reduced the 16-game NFL season to 15. Week 3 was canceled and Weeks 4 through 6 were staged mostly with replacement players.
The replacement teams were mocked as the Chicago "Spare Bears" and the San Francisco "Phony Niners."
"It wasn't a pretty sight out here, and I just don't want to go through that again," Vaccaro said. "The general public just didn't (bet) those games. It was stupid, silly mayhem. You wrote a peanut for business. No one is going to come here for replacement games."
The state sports book handle for a regular-season week in the NFL is estimated in the $15 million neighborhood, so even a partial loss of the season would be significant. College football games can be moved to Sunday and Monday, but that could never fill the void.
"From a bookmaking perspective, it would obviously have a negative impact. Pro football is still the most popular sport by a wide margin," Walker said. "I am worried too that the handle may slip a little on college Saturdays, especially for the tourist destinations.
"An 18-game season, on the other hand, would be a boon to the books, if that's still on the table."
The two sides are not even sitting at the table today. But they will come together in time, and when a deal gets done maybe Goodell will be remembered as the good guy.
If the mess drags into August, though, there will be chaos.
Unhappy people will be everywhere and there will be chaos, and this is not a story about Egypt. If the NFL closes its doors and goes dark, Roger Goodell might be remembered as the bad guy. This article was written by Matt Youmans and appeared in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
It's not just one guy, of course. But if a lockout becomes reality, Goodell, the league's commissioner since 2006 and the leader of the greedy owners, could be held responsible for not preventing a potential major league catastrophe.
As Tony Montana said, make way for the bad guy. People want to point fingers and say, "That's the bad guy."
Some will point fingers at the greedy players, and some won't care who's to blame. We just want to watch and wager on NFL games on Sundays and Mondays, and Nevada sports books need the business.
"You don't even like to think about it," Jimmy Vaccaro, director of operations for Lucky's sports books, said of an NFL blackout. "Obviously, it has a huge effect."
News arrived Thursday that labor talks collapsed between league representatives and the NFL Players Association. A bargaining session was canceled, and Goodell called off an owners meeting set for next week. The talking heads on ESPN are saying a lockout is likely with the collective bargaining agreement expiring March 3.
Only the naive are surprised to hear it.
"There is always a lot of public posturing in these negotiations," said Robert Walker, retired MGM Mirage sports book director. "I am hoping there will be no work stoppage. I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and this gets done. I believe that it will."
Eventually a deal will get done, but if a lockout extends into July, Las Vegas casinos could start counting losses.
"I don't make it a favorite for the NFL to start on time," Vaccaro said. "Although we're not allowed to book those type of events, I would book that we don't see preseason football and make that a small favorite.
"I hope it gets done. But the longer it drags on, it will have some effect. With the books, we've become dependent to some degree on coming to football season. Normal people start planning their vacations in June and July, and (no NFL) hurts the whole experience of people coming to town."
As of today, it still feels like business as usual. We're regrouping and resting after a long season, and the Las Vegas Hilton has odds to win next year's Super Bowl on the board.
"Can the Packers repeat?" Vaccaro said.
The Hilton posted New England as the 5-1 favorite, followed by Green Bay (6-1) and Pittsburgh (8-1). The Packers have a solid shot to repeat if Aaron Rodgers is their quarterback. If they have a replacement quarterback, who knows?
Vaccaro was a Las Vegas bookmaker in 1987, when a 24-day players' strike reduced the 16-game NFL season to 15. Week 3 was canceled and Weeks 4 through 6 were staged mostly with replacement players.
The replacement teams were mocked as the Chicago "Spare Bears" and the San Francisco "Phony Niners."
"It wasn't a pretty sight out here, and I just don't want to go through that again," Vaccaro said. "The general public just didn't (bet) those games. It was stupid, silly mayhem. You wrote a peanut for business. No one is going to come here for replacement games."
The state sports book handle for a regular-season week in the NFL is estimated in the $15 million neighborhood, so even a partial loss of the season would be significant. College football games can be moved to Sunday and Monday, but that could never fill the void.
"From a bookmaking perspective, it would obviously have a negative impact. Pro football is still the most popular sport by a wide margin," Walker said. "I am worried too that the handle may slip a little on college Saturdays, especially for the tourist destinations.
"An 18-game season, on the other hand, would be a boon to the books, if that's still on the table."
The two sides are not even sitting at the table today. But they will come together in time, and when a deal gets done maybe Goodell will be remembered as the good guy.
If the mess drags into August, though, there will be chaos.
Patience is key
Monday, February 14 2011
Like quilting, scrimshaw and ice dancing, collective bargaining has severe limitations as a spectator sport. This article was written by Tim Sullivan and appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune.
It is too tedious for television and, on most days, more nuanced than newsworthy. It is a complex competition conducted primarily behind closed doors and, often, over a period of many months. Even when the opposing factions are professional football owners and players, labor negotiations are a mating dance as staged by snails.
“If you worry about the day-to-day part of it as a casual observer, you’ll go crazy,” said David Carter, executive director of USC’s sports business institute. “You don’t know what is real and what is sent up as a trial balloon. You really have to take a step back and wait.”
Much as we might wish to find meaning in the maneuvers of the NFL’s management and its muscular union members, this is a bad time for transparency. Both sides are too busy striking poses, probing for weaknesses and disseminating propaganda to expect either candor or substantial progress before the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement expires March 3. Those who would attach any significance to the abrupt cancellation of Thursday’s scheduled negotiating session are likely mistaking a calculated ploy for a more serious problem.
Like a patient passer confident in his blocking, fans should take a seven-step drop and allow the play to develop a little longer. They ought to be able to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the two bargaining positions without becoming unduly influenced by their rhetorical blather.
Because NFL owners had the foresight to negotiate television contracts that will keep cash flowing even in the event of a lockout, it would appear they are better provisioned for a long siege. Because both history and Twitter tell us NFL players lack the solidarity of their baseball brethren — witness the internecine barbs between Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and New York Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie — experience says the union will eventually cave.
But both sides are made up of people with varying levels of leverage and different thresholds of desperation. While the cash-flow concerns of the prolific Cromartie are exacerbated by the many mouths he must feed, his employer also labors beneath massive obligations. According to Forbes’ 2010 franchise evaluations, the Jets carry the NFL’s largest debt load at approximately $750 million.
“You should keep an eye on whether there are differences emerging between the star players and the average players and between the well-off owners and the ones who are struggling financially,” said Harry Katz, dean of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. “The interests of stars are different than average players. Average players are worried about health insurance and minimum (salaries). Stars are interested in how quickly they can get to free agency.”
Owners, too, operate with different agendas. Though the Chargers are comparatively unburdened by debt, and might withstand a lockout better than some of the league’s more leveraged teams, the franchise’s future in San Diego could hinge on ownership’s ability to replenish the NFL’s “G-3” stadium loan program as part of a new collective bargaining agreement.
Ultimately, though, the deal is about dollars. Owners are seeking a second billion off the top of annual revenues now estimated between $8-9 billion. The union prefers a 50-50 split. Whether 18-game schedules, rookie wage scales and expanded drug testing are ownership priorities or just bargaining chips may be many months from resolution.
“The fundamental thing to keep in mind is both sides lose income if there’s an impasse,” Katz said. “If they don’t settle, it’s generally because one side miscalculates the strength (of the other).
“My gut is they’re going to settle, that they’re not that far apart. Neither one is desperate. They’ve bargained before, so they know each other. With the amount of money that’s at stake here … they’ve just got too much to lose.”
San Diego State’s sports business MBA candidates reached that same conclusion in a classroom exercise last November. With an assist from former NFL executive Jim Steeg, Gangaram Singh divided his class into teams and spent two days simulating the NFL’s collective bargaining experience. Students staged strategic storm-outs, conducted news conferences and regularly raised their voices, but four of the six groups succeeded in reaching a compromise. Two groups required arbitration.
“One of the things I do in my simulation is to reflect what happens in reality,” Singh said Thursday afternoon. “A lot of times what is played out in the media is a show. They’ll even plant things to throw off the other side …
“It’s a very complicated process. Seasoned negotiators would use all sorts of strategies and, to a layman, some of them would seem pretty bizarre.”
Like sausage-making, collective bargaining is best viewed from a distance. Ideally, as a finished product.
Like quilting, scrimshaw and ice dancing, collective bargaining has severe limitations as a spectator sport. This article was written by Tim Sullivan and appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune.
It is too tedious for television and, on most days, more nuanced than newsworthy. It is a complex competition conducted primarily behind closed doors and, often, over a period of many months. Even when the opposing factions are professional football owners and players, labor negotiations are a mating dance as staged by snails.
“If you worry about the day-to-day part of it as a casual observer, you’ll go crazy,” said David Carter, executive director of USC’s sports business institute. “You don’t know what is real and what is sent up as a trial balloon. You really have to take a step back and wait.”
Much as we might wish to find meaning in the maneuvers of the NFL’s management and its muscular union members, this is a bad time for transparency. Both sides are too busy striking poses, probing for weaknesses and disseminating propaganda to expect either candor or substantial progress before the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement expires March 3. Those who would attach any significance to the abrupt cancellation of Thursday’s scheduled negotiating session are likely mistaking a calculated ploy for a more serious problem.
Like a patient passer confident in his blocking, fans should take a seven-step drop and allow the play to develop a little longer. They ought to be able to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the two bargaining positions without becoming unduly influenced by their rhetorical blather.
Because NFL owners had the foresight to negotiate television contracts that will keep cash flowing even in the event of a lockout, it would appear they are better provisioned for a long siege. Because both history and Twitter tell us NFL players lack the solidarity of their baseball brethren — witness the internecine barbs between Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and New York Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie — experience says the union will eventually cave.
But both sides are made up of people with varying levels of leverage and different thresholds of desperation. While the cash-flow concerns of the prolific Cromartie are exacerbated by the many mouths he must feed, his employer also labors beneath massive obligations. According to Forbes’ 2010 franchise evaluations, the Jets carry the NFL’s largest debt load at approximately $750 million.
“You should keep an eye on whether there are differences emerging between the star players and the average players and between the well-off owners and the ones who are struggling financially,” said Harry Katz, dean of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. “The interests of stars are different than average players. Average players are worried about health insurance and minimum (salaries). Stars are interested in how quickly they can get to free agency.”
Owners, too, operate with different agendas. Though the Chargers are comparatively unburdened by debt, and might withstand a lockout better than some of the league’s more leveraged teams, the franchise’s future in San Diego could hinge on ownership’s ability to replenish the NFL’s “G-3” stadium loan program as part of a new collective bargaining agreement.
Ultimately, though, the deal is about dollars. Owners are seeking a second billion off the top of annual revenues now estimated between $8-9 billion. The union prefers a 50-50 split. Whether 18-game schedules, rookie wage scales and expanded drug testing are ownership priorities or just bargaining chips may be many months from resolution.
“The fundamental thing to keep in mind is both sides lose income if there’s an impasse,” Katz said. “If they don’t settle, it’s generally because one side miscalculates the strength (of the other).
“My gut is they’re going to settle, that they’re not that far apart. Neither one is desperate. They’ve bargained before, so they know each other. With the amount of money that’s at stake here … they’ve just got too much to lose.”
San Diego State’s sports business MBA candidates reached that same conclusion in a classroom exercise last November. With an assist from former NFL executive Jim Steeg, Gangaram Singh divided his class into teams and spent two days simulating the NFL’s collective bargaining experience. Students staged strategic storm-outs, conducted news conferences and regularly raised their voices, but four of the six groups succeeded in reaching a compromise. Two groups required arbitration.
“One of the things I do in my simulation is to reflect what happens in reality,” Singh said Thursday afternoon. “A lot of times what is played out in the media is a show. They’ll even plant things to throw off the other side …
“It’s a very complicated process. Seasoned negotiators would use all sorts of strategies and, to a layman, some of them would seem pretty bizarre.”
Like sausage-making, collective bargaining is best viewed from a distance. Ideally, as a finished product.
Waiting until September?
Monday, February 14 2011
Although the NFL's labor agreement is set to expire in about three weeks, the real pressure to strike a deal might not exist until September — when the games are supposed to begin again. This article was written by Jarrett Bell and appeared in USA Today.
That's why Gary Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law, isn't surprised that a second day of negotiating sessions between the NFL and the NFL Players Association was cancelled Thursday and meetings planned for next week were also put on ice.
"These types of labor negotiations in any industry, nine times out of 10, they don't get done until the last minute," said Roberts, editor-in-chief of The Sports Lawyer. "I figure the deal won't get done until early September. That's when the season is at risk.
"Neither side wants to blink first."
Both sides have expressed urgency. While sponsorships and marketing deals could be jeopardized by a work stoppage — the union expects a lockout if the current CBA expires after March 3 — NFL lead counsel Jeff Pash warned last week that hundreds of millions of dollars typically paid to free agents in March won't change hands.
Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, a member of the NFLPA's 11-member executive committee who was in Wednesday's bargaining session, tweeted that he is "sorely disappointed" that talks broke off.
Many issues are unresolved, such as the NFL's demand for $1 billion a year in givebacks while the union presses to see more of the owners' financial records.
According to the Associated Press, the union sent a memo to agents on Thursday that outlined differences regarding a proposed rookie wage scale. The union wants contracts for players selected in the first three rounds to be limited to four years; three years for players chosen after the third round. The AP reported the league proposes five-year contracts.
E-mailed NFL spokesman Greg Aiello: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process."
The NFL generated an estimated $9 billion in revenues in 2010. In the last year of a salary cap in 2009, players were due 59.5% of revenues after $1 billion in cost credits went to owners.
Roberts believes that the changes at the top for both sides since the CBA was last extended in 2006 are a factor in sluggish talks. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell succeeded the retired Paul Tagliabue in 2007, while DeMaurice Smith replaced the late Gene Upshaw as players union chief in 2008.
"If either one of them makes major concessions this early in the game, they'll take a lot of heat," said Roberts. "Neither can look like a softie."
Although the NFL's labor agreement is set to expire in about three weeks, the real pressure to strike a deal might not exist until September — when the games are supposed to begin again. This article was written by Jarrett Bell and appeared in USA Today.
That's why Gary Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law, isn't surprised that a second day of negotiating sessions between the NFL and the NFL Players Association was cancelled Thursday and meetings planned for next week were also put on ice.
"These types of labor negotiations in any industry, nine times out of 10, they don't get done until the last minute," said Roberts, editor-in-chief of The Sports Lawyer. "I figure the deal won't get done until early September. That's when the season is at risk.
"Neither side wants to blink first."
Both sides have expressed urgency. While sponsorships and marketing deals could be jeopardized by a work stoppage — the union expects a lockout if the current CBA expires after March 3 — NFL lead counsel Jeff Pash warned last week that hundreds of millions of dollars typically paid to free agents in March won't change hands.
Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, a member of the NFLPA's 11-member executive committee who was in Wednesday's bargaining session, tweeted that he is "sorely disappointed" that talks broke off.
Many issues are unresolved, such as the NFL's demand for $1 billion a year in givebacks while the union presses to see more of the owners' financial records.
According to the Associated Press, the union sent a memo to agents on Thursday that outlined differences regarding a proposed rookie wage scale. The union wants contracts for players selected in the first three rounds to be limited to four years; three years for players chosen after the third round. The AP reported the league proposes five-year contracts.
E-mailed NFL spokesman Greg Aiello: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process."
The NFL generated an estimated $9 billion in revenues in 2010. In the last year of a salary cap in 2009, players were due 59.5% of revenues after $1 billion in cost credits went to owners.
Roberts believes that the changes at the top for both sides since the CBA was last extended in 2006 are a factor in sluggish talks. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell succeeded the retired Paul Tagliabue in 2007, while DeMaurice Smith replaced the late Gene Upshaw as players union chief in 2008.
"If either one of them makes major concessions this early in the game, they'll take a lot of heat," said Roberts. "Neither can look like a softie."
Labour talks cancelled could mean sides are far apart
Saturday, February 12 2011
Efforts to jump-start NFL labor talks seem to have stalled just days after the owners and the players promised to work harder to reach a deal before the collective-bargaining agreement expires March 3. This article was written by the Staff of The Seattle Times.
All-day meetings scheduled for Thursday were abruptly canceled, raising doubts the two sides were any closer to reaching a compromise in their standoff of more than two years. With the threat of a lockout looming, neither side appears to have made headway in the dispute over how to divide the league's $9 billion in revenue.
If anything, the two sides may be farther apart. Wednesday's meeting in Washington broke down well before its scheduled close. The owners came close to walking out after the players rejected their proposal for an additional $1 billion in spending credits. They were also frustrated by a proposal by the players to eliminate spending credits and simply split all revenue down the middle.
Under the current system, the players get almost 60 percent of all revenue after $1 billion is subtracted for expenses the owners incur. Factoring in that deduction, the players receive about half of the league's remaining revenue.
The union and the league held conference calls with their constituencies Thursday. No other meetings are scheduled.
"We certainly don't want to have another meeting like yesterday," said a person involved in the talks who was not authorized to speak for his side.
Domonique Foxworth, a cornerback for the Baltimore Ravens and a member of the union's executive committee, said on Twitter that he was "sorely disappointed" that Thursday's meeting was canceled. "I can PROMISE you that (AT)NFLPA is trying every avenue to bring you football next year."
Additionally, the NFL canceled an owners meeting planned for next week.
"The commissioner did not see a need for it right now," said Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the league.
Both sides could continue to talk in smaller groups or by phone. Commissioner Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, have met privately, even when full meetings were not scheduled.
Efforts to jump-start NFL labor talks seem to have stalled just days after the owners and the players promised to work harder to reach a deal before the collective-bargaining agreement expires March 3. This article was written by the Staff of The Seattle Times.
All-day meetings scheduled for Thursday were abruptly canceled, raising doubts the two sides were any closer to reaching a compromise in their standoff of more than two years. With the threat of a lockout looming, neither side appears to have made headway in the dispute over how to divide the league's $9 billion in revenue.
If anything, the two sides may be farther apart. Wednesday's meeting in Washington broke down well before its scheduled close. The owners came close to walking out after the players rejected their proposal for an additional $1 billion in spending credits. They were also frustrated by a proposal by the players to eliminate spending credits and simply split all revenue down the middle.
Under the current system, the players get almost 60 percent of all revenue after $1 billion is subtracted for expenses the owners incur. Factoring in that deduction, the players receive about half of the league's remaining revenue.
The union and the league held conference calls with their constituencies Thursday. No other meetings are scheduled.
"We certainly don't want to have another meeting like yesterday," said a person involved in the talks who was not authorized to speak for his side.
Domonique Foxworth, a cornerback for the Baltimore Ravens and a member of the union's executive committee, said on Twitter that he was "sorely disappointed" that Thursday's meeting was canceled. "I can PROMISE you that (AT)NFLPA is trying every avenue to bring you football next year."
Additionally, the NFL canceled an owners meeting planned for next week.
"The commissioner did not see a need for it right now," said Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the league.
Both sides could continue to talk in smaller groups or by phone. Commissioner Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, have met privately, even when full meetings were not scheduled.
Union and League far apart
Saturday, February 12 2011
So, who are you rooting for in this fight of millionaires vs. billionaires? This article was written by Gary Myers and appeared in The New York Daily News.
Do you go with the 1,900 players? Back in 1982, their motto was "We Are The Game," but they came crawling back and ended their 57-day strike. They are still the game - nobody comes to see Jerry Jones pacing the sidelines - and they take the physical risk.
How about the 32 owners? They take the financial risk or whatever risk there is when the business is generating $8.9 billion a year in revenue.
There are plenty of legitimate issues here: player safety and health, retired player benefits, a rookie salary cap that will control the ridiculous amount of money going to unproven players, Roger Goodell's controversial plan for an 18-game season.
But it all comes down to one thing: finding a way to split the $8.9 billion. The owners already are allowed to take $1 billion off the top before the players get their nearly 60% share. Now the owners want to take another $1 billion off the top.
The lockout clock is ticking pretty fast. The new league year is supposed to start three weeks from Friday. But at 12:01 a.m. March 4, the collective bargaining agreement expires. Unless there is a deal (unlikely) or enough progress to stop the clock (not so likely), there will be a lockout (very likely).
There is nothing that turns off fans more quickly and more completely than a labor dispute.
The problem is the extra $1 billion per year - the money the owners want to keep to grow the game, which they say will ultimately benefit the players when new cash-cow stadiums and other revenue-producing ideas suddenly appear. Making up ground on that $1 billion difference in the next three weeks will be tougher than the Eagles wiping out that 21-point deficit against the Giants.
It's not a good sign so little progress was made at this week's negotiations in Washington. It was supposed to be two days, but Wednesday's meeting was cut short and Thursday's session was canceled. Goodell also canceled Tuesday's owners meeting in Philadelphia, and no new meetings are planned with the union.
Uh-oh.
The meetings this week broke up over how to split the money. Clearly, there is a compromise in here somewhere, but first there is a game of chicken that must be played. The union wants financial transparency from the league to back up the necessity for the players to take a paycut. The league says the union has all the financial information it needs.
The sense of urgency to avoid a lockout begins March 1. The next sense of urgency isn't until Aug. 1, when training camps need to open in order for the season to start on time.
Would there be anything dumber than the most popular sport in the world having a regular-season work stoppage?
A lockout in the offseason will cause enough problems. In effect, the owners are going on strike. If this wipes out any regular-season games, then it will be maybe the lowest point in NFL history.
This has always been a deadline league. So let's see how this plays out over the next few weeks.
But if the lockout hits, there will be plenty of ramifications:
The record 495 players (25% of the league) scheduled to be unrestricted free agents on March 4 - for many the one time in their career to cash in - will be in limbo, men without teams. During a lockout, no business between players and clubs can be conducted. "I'm sure there is some angst for those guys," one source close to the negotiations said Thursday.
The offseason programs, which usually start in late March, will be canceled. Same with minicamps and OTAs. The eight new coaches, who need to implement their new programs, won't have any players around to coach.
The NFL will stop paying the premiums on the players' health insurance policies. This does not mean they will be without insurance. They can continue their coverage through COBRA and pay the premiums themselves, estimated anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per month.
Here's what the NFL said it will lose in revenue if there is a lockout: $120 million in March, the cumulative figure grows to $350 million in August and $1 billion if the lockout ends right before the season. Then it's another $400 million per week in lost revenue once the regular season starts.
When the owners and players met Saturday in Dallas, there was some optimism that they were making progress on concepts. On Monday, Goodell said, "The most important thing is you're talking and you're communicating."
Not any more. Not right now.
The NFL didn't like the doomsday reports coming out of this week's get-together. "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of (Wednesday's) meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process," the league said in a statement. "Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal."
Millionaires vs. billionaires. What a fight.
So, who are you rooting for in this fight of millionaires vs. billionaires? This article was written by Gary Myers and appeared in The New York Daily News.
Do you go with the 1,900 players? Back in 1982, their motto was "We Are The Game," but they came crawling back and ended their 57-day strike. They are still the game - nobody comes to see Jerry Jones pacing the sidelines - and they take the physical risk.
How about the 32 owners? They take the financial risk or whatever risk there is when the business is generating $8.9 billion a year in revenue.
There are plenty of legitimate issues here: player safety and health, retired player benefits, a rookie salary cap that will control the ridiculous amount of money going to unproven players, Roger Goodell's controversial plan for an 18-game season.
But it all comes down to one thing: finding a way to split the $8.9 billion. The owners already are allowed to take $1 billion off the top before the players get their nearly 60% share. Now the owners want to take another $1 billion off the top.
The lockout clock is ticking pretty fast. The new league year is supposed to start three weeks from Friday. But at 12:01 a.m. March 4, the collective bargaining agreement expires. Unless there is a deal (unlikely) or enough progress to stop the clock (not so likely), there will be a lockout (very likely).
There is nothing that turns off fans more quickly and more completely than a labor dispute.
The problem is the extra $1 billion per year - the money the owners want to keep to grow the game, which they say will ultimately benefit the players when new cash-cow stadiums and other revenue-producing ideas suddenly appear. Making up ground on that $1 billion difference in the next three weeks will be tougher than the Eagles wiping out that 21-point deficit against the Giants.
It's not a good sign so little progress was made at this week's negotiations in Washington. It was supposed to be two days, but Wednesday's meeting was cut short and Thursday's session was canceled. Goodell also canceled Tuesday's owners meeting in Philadelphia, and no new meetings are planned with the union.
Uh-oh.
The meetings this week broke up over how to split the money. Clearly, there is a compromise in here somewhere, but first there is a game of chicken that must be played. The union wants financial transparency from the league to back up the necessity for the players to take a paycut. The league says the union has all the financial information it needs.
The sense of urgency to avoid a lockout begins March 1. The next sense of urgency isn't until Aug. 1, when training camps need to open in order for the season to start on time.
Would there be anything dumber than the most popular sport in the world having a regular-season work stoppage?
A lockout in the offseason will cause enough problems. In effect, the owners are going on strike. If this wipes out any regular-season games, then it will be maybe the lowest point in NFL history.
This has always been a deadline league. So let's see how this plays out over the next few weeks.
But if the lockout hits, there will be plenty of ramifications:
The record 495 players (25% of the league) scheduled to be unrestricted free agents on March 4 - for many the one time in their career to cash in - will be in limbo, men without teams. During a lockout, no business between players and clubs can be conducted. "I'm sure there is some angst for those guys," one source close to the negotiations said Thursday.
The offseason programs, which usually start in late March, will be canceled. Same with minicamps and OTAs. The eight new coaches, who need to implement their new programs, won't have any players around to coach.
The NFL will stop paying the premiums on the players' health insurance policies. This does not mean they will be without insurance. They can continue their coverage through COBRA and pay the premiums themselves, estimated anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per month.
Here's what the NFL said it will lose in revenue if there is a lockout: $120 million in March, the cumulative figure grows to $350 million in August and $1 billion if the lockout ends right before the season. Then it's another $400 million per week in lost revenue once the regular season starts.
When the owners and players met Saturday in Dallas, there was some optimism that they were making progress on concepts. On Monday, Goodell said, "The most important thing is you're talking and you're communicating."
Not any more. Not right now.
The NFL didn't like the doomsday reports coming out of this week's get-together. "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of (Wednesday's) meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process," the league said in a statement. "Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal."
Millionaires vs. billionaires. What a fight.
And the walls came tumbling down III
Friday, February 11 2011
NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources.
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith briefed club player representatives in a conference call Wednesday night, detailing his version of the abbreviated session that ended far earlier than the seven hours that were scheduled between the two sides in an effort to reach a new collective bargaining agreement before it expires at midnight March 3.
Consequently, a five-hour second negotiating session scheduled for Thursday was canceled, and no further meetings have been proposed. Also, the NFL notified teams and owners Thursday that a scheduled owners meeting in Philadelphia next Tuesday has been canceled, sources told ESPN.com's John Clayton.
Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."
At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.
Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before it splits "total revenue" with players.
Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion in credits.
To simplify talks, a player source said the union told the owners' negotiating team that it will forgo its request to examine the league's financial books by simply taking the flat 50 percent cut of "all revenue," which would eliminate $1 billion to $2 billion credits off the top and erase the definition of "total revenue."
A union source said that if the NFLPA accepted the owners' current proposal, it would receive a little more than 40 percent of all revenue.
Smith said in an interview with ESPN last week that a 40 percent to 42 percent share of all revenue would represent the smallest percentage of a players' share by any professional sports union.
In addition to the flat 50 percent share of all revenue, players are willing to grant additional credits to any franchise that reinvests in stadium improvement, a mechanism to motivate clubs to grow revenues, a player source said.
The union believes by taking a flat 50 percent share, it would eliminate the need to audit every expense clubs invest in order to offset credits built into the current CBA and the model proposed by owners going forward.
NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah would not elaborate Thursday, except to say, "This didn't just start yesterday."
Smith also sent an e-mail, obtained by ESPN, to NFL agents on Thursday outlining the owners' latest rookie wage-scale proposal in January. He detailed how far apart the two sides are, and in an attached memo dated Jan. 26, said the NFL's latest proposal "is a veteran scale, not a rookie scale."
The NFL's owners continued to propose a five-year wage scale for first-rounders, four years for other drafted players, and no individually negotiated contracts. But, according to Smith, the owners added "league-wide base salary escalators."
Smith wrote that the owners' latest offer "makes the proposal worse not only for rookies, but for veteran players with three to five years in the league -- the core of our membership."
Also, players would not be able to renegotiate their contracts or agree to extensions until three years after they were drafted. Signing bonuses would be fixed, paid over the length of a contract and subject to forfeiture "if the player does not toe the Club's line in every way," Smith wrote.
In late September, the NFLPA proposed maximum four-year contracts for players drafted in the first three rounds, and three-year contracts for other drafted players.
The NFLPA's proposal also provided for individually negotiated contracts instead of the owners' proposed set salaries. In addition, a cap would be placed on rookie contract incentives and escalators. The money saved then would be used for a bonus pool for veteran players and rookies who outperformed their contract.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process. Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal." (source Chris Mortensen, ESPN)
NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources.
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith briefed club player representatives in a conference call Wednesday night, detailing his version of the abbreviated session that ended far earlier than the seven hours that were scheduled between the two sides in an effort to reach a new collective bargaining agreement before it expires at midnight March 3.
Consequently, a five-hour second negotiating session scheduled for Thursday was canceled, and no further meetings have been proposed. Also, the NFL notified teams and owners Thursday that a scheduled owners meeting in Philadelphia next Tuesday has been canceled, sources told ESPN.com's John Clayton.
Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."
At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.
Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before it splits "total revenue" with players.
Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion in credits.
To simplify talks, a player source said the union told the owners' negotiating team that it will forgo its request to examine the league's financial books by simply taking the flat 50 percent cut of "all revenue," which would eliminate $1 billion to $2 billion credits off the top and erase the definition of "total revenue."
A union source said that if the NFLPA accepted the owners' current proposal, it would receive a little more than 40 percent of all revenue.
Smith said in an interview with ESPN last week that a 40 percent to 42 percent share of all revenue would represent the smallest percentage of a players' share by any professional sports union.
In addition to the flat 50 percent share of all revenue, players are willing to grant additional credits to any franchise that reinvests in stadium improvement, a mechanism to motivate clubs to grow revenues, a player source said.
The union believes by taking a flat 50 percent share, it would eliminate the need to audit every expense clubs invest in order to offset credits built into the current CBA and the model proposed by owners going forward.
NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah would not elaborate Thursday, except to say, "This didn't just start yesterday."
Smith also sent an e-mail, obtained by ESPN, to NFL agents on Thursday outlining the owners' latest rookie wage-scale proposal in January. He detailed how far apart the two sides are, and in an attached memo dated Jan. 26, said the NFL's latest proposal "is a veteran scale, not a rookie scale."
The NFL's owners continued to propose a five-year wage scale for first-rounders, four years for other drafted players, and no individually negotiated contracts. But, according to Smith, the owners added "league-wide base salary escalators."
Smith wrote that the owners' latest offer "makes the proposal worse not only for rookies, but for veteran players with three to five years in the league -- the core of our membership."
Also, players would not be able to renegotiate their contracts or agree to extensions until three years after they were drafted. Signing bonuses would be fixed, paid over the length of a contract and subject to forfeiture "if the player does not toe the Club's line in every way," Smith wrote.
In late September, the NFLPA proposed maximum four-year contracts for players drafted in the first three rounds, and three-year contracts for other drafted players.
The NFLPA's proposal also provided for individually negotiated contracts instead of the owners' proposed set salaries. In addition, a cap would be placed on rookie contract incentives and escalators. The money saved then would be used for a bonus pool for veteran players and rookies who outperformed their contract.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process. Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal." (source Chris Mortensen, ESPN)
NFL is too self absorbed to avoid labour strife
Friday, February 11 2011
The good thing is the NFL has never been more popular. The bad news comes if the NFL suspects its popularity makes it bulletproof. This article was written by Bud Shaw and appeared in the Cleavland Plain Dealer.
The NFL is the richest, most popular boy in school. Now we find out if he's unmatched in street smarts, too, or if all the fawning and eyelash batting has gone to his head and convinced him he can do no wrong.
Super Bowl XLV was the most watched TV show in history. Some of that interest had to do with the commercials and -- at least for a fleeting few minutes -- the desire to see if Black Eyed Peas were there to entertain or if they were angling to get beamed to the Starship Enterprise. A real-time poll of viewers favored matter transportation.
But by most measures, the game has never been more popular, and that's a little scary as the owners and players threaten to huff and puff and blow each other's houses down. Owners might just think fans will be waiting for them as eager as ever when the lockout ends and a new collective bargaining agreement is reached.
Other than here in Cleveland -- where people got their hearts ripped out in 1995 and held candlelight vigils to win back the right to pay for PSLs and a new stadium -- where does the NFL come off thinking we're hopelessly addicted to what it's selling?
Already emboldened by billions in TV money to help them ride out the storm, owners don't seem particularly worried about the PR hit. They know, of course, the players always take the brunt of that, even if the owners are locking out their employees.
Major League Baseball wasn't nearly as popular as the NFL when it killed the 1994 World Series. It needed the Steroid Era to sell it after.
You'd like to think the owners recognize the wave of goodwill and popularity they're riding and would adopt the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to a loyal (and growing) fan base instead of adopting the Oath of Hypocrisy by crying poor, taking their ball and getting a limo ride home.
You'd like to think behind closed doors they've agreed to protect the 2011 season at all costs. Because the game isn't in financial ruins.
You'd like to think the people negotiating this agreement wouldn't mess up such a good thing. After all, it's all about the customers, right?
OK, except the ones told their $800 Super Bowl tickets in Dallas didn't come with a place to sit down.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The good thing is the NFL has never been more popular. The bad news comes if the NFL suspects its popularity makes it bulletproof. This article was written by Bud Shaw and appeared in the Cleavland Plain Dealer.
The NFL is the richest, most popular boy in school. Now we find out if he's unmatched in street smarts, too, or if all the fawning and eyelash batting has gone to his head and convinced him he can do no wrong.
Super Bowl XLV was the most watched TV show in history. Some of that interest had to do with the commercials and -- at least for a fleeting few minutes -- the desire to see if Black Eyed Peas were there to entertain or if they were angling to get beamed to the Starship Enterprise. A real-time poll of viewers favored matter transportation.
But by most measures, the game has never been more popular, and that's a little scary as the owners and players threaten to huff and puff and blow each other's houses down. Owners might just think fans will be waiting for them as eager as ever when the lockout ends and a new collective bargaining agreement is reached.
Other than here in Cleveland -- where people got their hearts ripped out in 1995 and held candlelight vigils to win back the right to pay for PSLs and a new stadium -- where does the NFL come off thinking we're hopelessly addicted to what it's selling?
Already emboldened by billions in TV money to help them ride out the storm, owners don't seem particularly worried about the PR hit. They know, of course, the players always take the brunt of that, even if the owners are locking out their employees.
Major League Baseball wasn't nearly as popular as the NFL when it killed the 1994 World Series. It needed the Steroid Era to sell it after.
You'd like to think the owners recognize the wave of goodwill and popularity they're riding and would adopt the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to a loyal (and growing) fan base instead of adopting the Oath of Hypocrisy by crying poor, taking their ball and getting a limo ride home.
You'd like to think behind closed doors they've agreed to protect the 2011 season at all costs. Because the game isn't in financial ruins.
You'd like to think the people negotiating this agreement wouldn't mess up such a good thing. After all, it's all about the customers, right?
OK, except the ones told their $800 Super Bowl tickets in Dallas didn't come with a place to sit down.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
And the walls came tumbling down II
Friday, February 11 2011
The NFL released a statement Thursday afternoon on the state of labor negotiations that tried to have the best of both worlds.
It tried to take the high road. Essentially the purpose for the statement was to say the NFL won’t negotiate in public. But the league couldn’t resist calling the reports coming out of Wednesday’s session with the NFLPA “inaccurate.” That’s basically negotiating in public.
Here’s the full statement:
“Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday’s meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side’s proposals or the meeting process.
“Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal.”
The statement recognizes that the guts of the negotiation should be kept private. In the age of Twitter, 24-hour sports coverage, and PFT (sorry), that’s going to be more difficult than ever before . (source Pro Football Talk)
The NFL released a statement Thursday afternoon on the state of labor negotiations that tried to have the best of both worlds.
It tried to take the high road. Essentially the purpose for the statement was to say the NFL won’t negotiate in public. But the league couldn’t resist calling the reports coming out of Wednesday’s session with the NFLPA “inaccurate.” That’s basically negotiating in public.
Here’s the full statement:
“Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday’s meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side’s proposals or the meeting process.
“Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal.”
The statement recognizes that the guts of the negotiation should be kept private. In the age of Twitter, 24-hour sports coverage, and PFT (sorry), that’s going to be more difficult than ever before . (source Pro Football Talk)
And the walls came tumbling down
Friday, February 11 2011
The discrepancy between the league’s and the union’s view of the size of the slice of the pie that the players collectively receive isn’t the only issue on which the NFL and the NFLPA disagree. The two sides also disagree on the rookie wage scale.
Or, as the union now calls it, the “veteran wage scale.”
Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reported earlier today that NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith explained in a memo to certain players that the rookie wage scale proposed by management would affect players with three to five years of experience, or as Smith put it “the core of our membership.”
The league proposed a system including five-year deals for first-round picks and four-year contracts for players drafted in all other rounds; the union wants maximum deals of four years in rounds one through three and three years in rounds four through seven.
“This wage scale would have a very dramatic effect on league salaries when you consider the number of players that would be subject to its terms,” Smith explained in a memo to the members of the Executive Committee and the various player representatives, claiming that 60 percent of the league would fall under the terms of the league’s proposal.
But here’s the reality. Roughly 60 percent of the league already falls under an unofficial rookie wage scale, which after round one pays players reasonable amounts about which the NFL rarely complains — especially when a mid-round pick becomes a star. The issue here is the amount of money paid at the top of the draft, and that’s where the focus should be.
It’s not just about eliminating the windfall for unproven rookies, but also about redirecting that money to rookies who outperform their salaries and finding ways to funnel money that is wasted on busts like JaMarcus Russell to the retired players who made the game what it is.
There can be no doubt that it’s in the best interests of the league, the teams, and the current members of the union to ensure that unproven players don’t continue to get inflated contracts, the growth of which continues to outpace the increase in pay for veteran players. The union, in our view, is resisting much-needed change simply in the hopes of scoring a concessions from the league, and possibly because powerful agencies that pocket three percent of the first-round rookie contracts don’t want to lose their cut of the windfall.
Employed at one of those firms as an agent is the son of NFLPA chief outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler. (Just sayin’.)
This should be the easiest problem for the two sides to fix. In a cap-driven system, a rookie wage scale does not undermine in any way the total money available to players. Indeed, every dollar taken away from unproven rookies is one more dollar available to proven players. By ensuring that tens of millions won’t go to players who never contribute to the betterment of the game and by also ensuring that rookies who achieve greatness immediately get compensated for their efforts now, the pie can be carved up fairly for everyone.
But first the union has to ignore any and all self-interests clouding the process and commit to taking actions aimed for the good of the game, and for the good of the current members of the union. (source Pro Football Talk)
The discrepancy between the league’s and the union’s view of the size of the slice of the pie that the players collectively receive isn’t the only issue on which the NFL and the NFLPA disagree. The two sides also disagree on the rookie wage scale.
Or, as the union now calls it, the “veteran wage scale.”
Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reported earlier today that NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith explained in a memo to certain players that the rookie wage scale proposed by management would affect players with three to five years of experience, or as Smith put it “the core of our membership.”
The league proposed a system including five-year deals for first-round picks and four-year contracts for players drafted in all other rounds; the union wants maximum deals of four years in rounds one through three and three years in rounds four through seven.
“This wage scale would have a very dramatic effect on league salaries when you consider the number of players that would be subject to its terms,” Smith explained in a memo to the members of the Executive Committee and the various player representatives, claiming that 60 percent of the league would fall under the terms of the league’s proposal.
But here’s the reality. Roughly 60 percent of the league already falls under an unofficial rookie wage scale, which after round one pays players reasonable amounts about which the NFL rarely complains — especially when a mid-round pick becomes a star. The issue here is the amount of money paid at the top of the draft, and that’s where the focus should be.
It’s not just about eliminating the windfall for unproven rookies, but also about redirecting that money to rookies who outperform their salaries and finding ways to funnel money that is wasted on busts like JaMarcus Russell to the retired players who made the game what it is.
There can be no doubt that it’s in the best interests of the league, the teams, and the current members of the union to ensure that unproven players don’t continue to get inflated contracts, the growth of which continues to outpace the increase in pay for veteran players. The union, in our view, is resisting much-needed change simply in the hopes of scoring a concessions from the league, and possibly because powerful agencies that pocket three percent of the first-round rookie contracts don’t want to lose their cut of the windfall.
Employed at one of those firms as an agent is the son of NFLPA chief outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler. (Just sayin’.)
This should be the easiest problem for the two sides to fix. In a cap-driven system, a rookie wage scale does not undermine in any way the total money available to players. Indeed, every dollar taken away from unproven rookies is one more dollar available to proven players. By ensuring that tens of millions won’t go to players who never contribute to the betterment of the game and by also ensuring that rookies who achieve greatness immediately get compensated for their efforts now, the pie can be carved up fairly for everyone.
But first the union has to ignore any and all self-interests clouding the process and commit to taking actions aimed for the good of the game, and for the good of the current members of the union. (source Pro Football Talk)
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)