In an 89-page ruling issued Monday, a federal judge in St. Paul, Minn., ordered an end to the NFL lockout. The ruling from Judge Susan Richard Nelson raises significant legal questions about the lockout, the relationship between the owners and the players, and the 2011 season. Here are some of the questions and their answers:
How important is the ruling to end the lockout?
It is very important. Although it was not entirely unexpected, it is a triumph for the players and a major setback for the owners. The owners' decision to lock out the players came after nearly three years of planning. It was a major initiative. It was supposed to be a dramatic, game-changing maneuver that would allow the owners to recapture league money the owners gave to the players in an agreement in 2006. Now, instead of enjoying the leverage of a lockout that leaves the players facing major uncertainties, it is the owners who are facing uncertainties. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners will continue to talk about Monday's decision as a small step in a long process, and they will appeal it immediately. But the decision is a critical win for the players. An injunction is the most drastic order a court can make in a civil matter. It is always difficult to obtain an injunction. Obtaining this injunction against formidable opposition from the owners is a significant vindication for the players and their lawyers.
What happens next?
The owners have asked for a "stay of execution" on the injunction order. A stay is simply a delay in the time the injunction takes effect. A stay in this situation would keep the lockout in effect until the owners complete an appeal of the decision Nelson made Monday. The owners' attorneys will argue Nelson should issue a stay to allow them to preserve the status quo and to appeal her decision. A stay is frequently granted in similar situations. If Nelson does not grant the stay, the owners' attorneys will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to issue a stay that would continue the lockout.
Will the owners succeed in obtaining a stay that would continue the lockout?
In similar situations, the owners typically would succeed in obtaining a stay and would be allowed to continue their lockout of the players. That might not happen in this case. A quick reading of Nelson's 89-page opinion shows that the judge is concerned about the "irreparable damage" the lockout would do to NFL players. She notes with approval the sworn statements from veteran NFLPA attorney Richard Berthelsen and numerous players that players' careers are short due to the "ever-present risk of career-ending injury" and that "the loss of an entire year in a short professional athletic career cannot be recaptured and cannot be compensated by damages."
The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.
Is the ruling to end the lockout a surprise?
Yes, it is a bit of a surprise. It certainly is a surprise for the owners. Injunctions are granted only in the most compelling of circumstances. The players were required to show the irreparable harm already described. They were required to show that they would prevail in a full trial later on the issues raised by the lockout. And they were required to show that their plea was in the public interest. It was a tough case to make, but the players managed to do it.
What arguments did the owners make in support of their lockout?
The owners responded to the players' demand for an injunction ending the lockout with a highly technical argument based on the complicated jurisdictions of a federal court and the National Labor Relations Board. They claimed that the players' decertification of their union was a sham and that the whole thing was a labor dispute. Nelson did not buy any of it. In her opinion, she painstakingly goes through the owners' arguments and rejects them all. She was highly impressive in her reasoning and her language as she set aside each of the legal authorities that the owners offered. The owners treated the players' lawsuit as a labor issue instead of an antitrust issue. It is a strategy that has worked occasionally for the owners in earlier disputes but has failed more often than it has succeeded.
When the case reaches the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, will the owners benefit from its conservative, pro-business reputation?
It is possible that the owners' arguments will find a more receptive audience in the higher court. But "conservative" and "pro-business" might not work in this case in the same way they work in other cases. The players are individuals who are seeking to bargain as individuals in a free market. They decertified their union. Their ideal situation would be to bargain as individual players offering their services to several of the league's 32 teams. It would be the kind of open market that conservatives relish. In addition to their free-market ideas, the players have walked away from their union. Is a conservative court likely to accept the owners' idea that the players should be compelled to return to their union and act like a union? Conservatives do not often lean in the direction of establishing stronger unions. Although the higher court might be conservative and pro-business, that does not guarantee anything for the owners.
If there is no lockout, what rules govern the relationship between the players and the owners? What, for example, is the definition of free agency now?
These are good questions, and there are no answers at this point. If the owners fail in their attempts to obtain a stay of the order Nelson entered Monday, the owners might try to impose new rules. Or they might try to negotiate a new deal with the players. Or they might try to do both. It's likely that they will try to do both.
What are the most important effects of the court decision?
There are two important effects. The first is that the players have leveled the field for future negotiations. If the injunction remains in effect (and I believe it will remain in effect), the players have new and important leverage in their talks with owners. Instead of facing a loss of income and the loss of a season, they face the prospect of working under a new set of rules and, ultimately, a better deal with the owners.
The second important effect it that Goodell and the NFL lawyers have some explaining to do. They must find a way to explain to dubious owners how the lockout could go so wrong. In addition to the loss on the lockout injunction, the owners face serious problems in the players' lawsuit attacking the league's broadcast contracts that require networks to pay for games that are not played. Despite the years of planning, the lockout has not gone well. (source Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com)
miércoles, 27 de abril de 2011
Players can go in building, do little else - Ingles
One day after a federal judge ended a 45-day lockout, small groups of players showed up at team facilities Tuesday -- let inside but told they would not be allowed to work out on the same day the judge who lifted the lockout said she will take at least until Wednesday to consider whether she should put her order on hold.
There was an exception Tuesday afternoon, however, as Giants defensive tackle Chris Canty worked out in the team's weight room and spoke to head coach Tom Coughlin and other staff members.
"Got a chance to get a good workout in," Canty said. "I am going to come back as long as the door is open. There was no tension here. Coaches are excited to have guys back in the building."
Most players weren't as fortunate and left in a matter of minutes after arriving on a strange day with more questions than answers.
The league issued a statement that called for players to be "treated with courtesy and respect" if they show up. But the NFL said it needs "a few days to sort this out" before "football activities" can take place.
League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.
The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket. The NFLPA is trying to force the league to impose working rules or get the year started without rules. Nelson ordered the owners to respond by 6 p.m. ET Wednesday.
In an appearance on ESPN Radio's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on Tuesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the NFL is ultimately hurting the fans by not letting players get full use of their team's facilities.
"To be in a state where the National Football League is allowing this kind of chaos to occur ... I'm not sure it's a good day for football in the long run," he said.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Tuesday that teams aren't allowing players to work out until they get clarification from the NFL.
"We are in the process of determining throughout the league as to just how we will proceed and when we'll open the new year -- across the league our football year has not started yet."
Little was clear as both sides essentially made up the rules as they went along.
"It's very chaotic for the teams right now," agent Drew Rosenhaus said. "It's not chaotic for the players. Our position is the lockout is over, free agency should begin, signings should begin, offseason workouts should begin, everything should be going on. The longer the NFL doesn't do that and drags this out, the more there are concerns of collusion and violations of antitrust laws."
Buffalo cornerback Leodis McKelvin was turned away at the security gate, told to expect a call from his coach for clarity on when he could return.
"If I said I wasn't expecting it, I'd be lying to you," said Bills teammate George Wilson. "There's all kind of ways around and loopholes."
Washington Redskins wide receiver Anthony Armstrong and linebacker Lorenzo Alexander were met by general manager Bruce Allen and told they could come in but not work out. Both left after a few minutes.
"It was a little weird," Armstrong said. "It felt like you were sneaking into the club or something like that, and they knew you weren't supposed to be in there but they hadn't done anything about it yet. Just a little awkward."
Armstrong said he would call other teammates to let them know there wasn't much of a point to showing up.
"I do have a workout bonus, and since the lockout is lifted out," Alexander said. "I wanted to make sure I took full advantage to come up here and work out because I don't want some technicality to happen later: 'You didn't show up. You didn't come.' And then I'm out of my workout bonus."
Jets players Brandon Moore, Mike DeVito, D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery all reported to the team facility. Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark was in the team's training room, but he said there weren't any strength coaches there.
"I assumed when the lockout was lifted that things would go back to the way it was," Clark said.
Browns receiver Josh Cribbs said it was "disappointing" that he wasn't allowed to work out.
"I came here in workout clothes. I came to the Browns facility to try to work out," he told ESPN.com's James Walker. "I want to get back to work. We have a long road ahead."
The Jets' Ferguson, who has a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, said his appearance should count toward the bonus even though he didn't work out.
"Oh, most definitely," he told ESPNNewYork.com. "I made every opportunity to avail myself to work out. But at this time I wasn't afforded that opportunity."
Tennessee right guard Jake Scott, his team's player representative for the now-dissolved union, spoke to senior executive vice president Steve Underwood and left his team's headquarters 10 minutes later. (source ESPN.com)
There was an exception Tuesday afternoon, however, as Giants defensive tackle Chris Canty worked out in the team's weight room and spoke to head coach Tom Coughlin and other staff members.
"Got a chance to get a good workout in," Canty said. "I am going to come back as long as the door is open. There was no tension here. Coaches are excited to have guys back in the building."
Most players weren't as fortunate and left in a matter of minutes after arriving on a strange day with more questions than answers.
The league issued a statement that called for players to be "treated with courtesy and respect" if they show up. But the NFL said it needs "a few days to sort this out" before "football activities" can take place.
League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.
The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket. The NFLPA is trying to force the league to impose working rules or get the year started without rules. Nelson ordered the owners to respond by 6 p.m. ET Wednesday.
In an appearance on ESPN Radio's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on Tuesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the NFL is ultimately hurting the fans by not letting players get full use of their team's facilities.
"To be in a state where the National Football League is allowing this kind of chaos to occur ... I'm not sure it's a good day for football in the long run," he said.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Tuesday that teams aren't allowing players to work out until they get clarification from the NFL.
"We are in the process of determining throughout the league as to just how we will proceed and when we'll open the new year -- across the league our football year has not started yet."
Little was clear as both sides essentially made up the rules as they went along.
"It's very chaotic for the teams right now," agent Drew Rosenhaus said. "It's not chaotic for the players. Our position is the lockout is over, free agency should begin, signings should begin, offseason workouts should begin, everything should be going on. The longer the NFL doesn't do that and drags this out, the more there are concerns of collusion and violations of antitrust laws."
Buffalo cornerback Leodis McKelvin was turned away at the security gate, told to expect a call from his coach for clarity on when he could return.
"If I said I wasn't expecting it, I'd be lying to you," said Bills teammate George Wilson. "There's all kind of ways around and loopholes."
Washington Redskins wide receiver Anthony Armstrong and linebacker Lorenzo Alexander were met by general manager Bruce Allen and told they could come in but not work out. Both left after a few minutes.
"It was a little weird," Armstrong said. "It felt like you were sneaking into the club or something like that, and they knew you weren't supposed to be in there but they hadn't done anything about it yet. Just a little awkward."
Armstrong said he would call other teammates to let them know there wasn't much of a point to showing up.
"I do have a workout bonus, and since the lockout is lifted out," Alexander said. "I wanted to make sure I took full advantage to come up here and work out because I don't want some technicality to happen later: 'You didn't show up. You didn't come.' And then I'm out of my workout bonus."
Jets players Brandon Moore, Mike DeVito, D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery all reported to the team facility. Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark was in the team's training room, but he said there weren't any strength coaches there.
"I assumed when the lockout was lifted that things would go back to the way it was," Clark said.
Browns receiver Josh Cribbs said it was "disappointing" that he wasn't allowed to work out.
"I came here in workout clothes. I came to the Browns facility to try to work out," he told ESPN.com's James Walker. "I want to get back to work. We have a long road ahead."
The Jets' Ferguson, who has a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, said his appearance should count toward the bonus even though he didn't work out.
"Oh, most definitely," he told ESPNNewYork.com. "I made every opportunity to avail myself to work out. But at this time I wasn't afforded that opportunity."
Tennessee right guard Jake Scott, his team's player representative for the now-dissolved union, spoke to senior executive vice president Steve Underwood and left his team's headquarters 10 minutes later. (source ESPN.com)
NFL has no real plan to end lockout - Ingles
In the aftermath of Judge Susan Richard Nelson’s not-so-shocking decision to end the NFL lockout for at least the time being, I have this image in my head of the what the NFL lawyers, executives and owners looked like when they gathered to consider their next move.
Think “Animal House” and the scene after the Deltas go on double-secret probation. Think of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell channeling his inner-John Belushi and saying defiantly, “It’s not over until we say it’s over!”
Well, sort of.
For all of you who think free agency is magically going to start Tuesday morning, think again. The NFL has already filed an appeal questioning whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, seeking relief from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
“We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the NFL wrote in a statement that was released Monday. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”
That’s all well and good and the league is likely going to get its stay. However, here’s the problem with the approach by the league: it’s not going to work in the long run. The owners can hire all the big-time lawyers that they want and pay all the hourly fees necessary, but it’s not going to work. That’s because there’s a very simple issue on the side of the players.
It’s called the law. The law allows the NFL Players Association to decertify. The law allows any union in this country to decertify. This is not a sham, it’s a legal tactic complete with all sorts of risks for the players. The league wants the world to believe the players should be forced to negotiate on terms that favor the league, but that’s just not true.
Furthermore, the league will now have to convince a three-member panel of judges at the Eighth Circuit that what Nelson ruled is somehow wrong. Some people on the league’s side have attempted to reason that such an argument will be easier at the Eighth Circuit because nine of the 11 active judges (the case will randomly be assigned to three of them) were appointed by Republican presidents. Nice theory for those of you who think everything is about politics, but that’s not reality.
Want proof? The last time the league went to the Eighth Circuit was in 2009 to appeal Federal Judge David Doty’s decision allowing Michael Vick to keep approximately $20 million in bonus money that was paid to him by the Atlanta Falcons before he went to prison on dogfighting charges. Doty, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the CBA allowed Vick to keep the money, even though public sentiment was as against Vick as Dean Wormer was against the Deltas.
Doty’s decision was then upheld by the Eighth Circuit by three judges (Steven Colloton, William J. Riley and Roger Leland Wollman) who were appointed by George W. Bush (Colloton and Riley) or Reagan (Wollman).
In short, the league’s lawyers are going to have to convince three judges why they should overturn a pretty sound decision by another federal judge, even if she happens to have been appointed by President Obama. The league will also have to convince the three judges that they have less power to make decisions in this matter than the National Labor Relations Board. The league will have to convince the judges that the power of the owners to lock out the players supersedes the rights of those players to decertify and face the consequences. The league will have to convince the judges that collective bargaining didn’t break down even though the sides made little progress in the nearly three years since the owners opted out of the old collective bargaining agreement.
Good luck with all of that. There’s a better chance of owner Mike Brown leading the Cincinnati Bengals to a Super Bowl title than there is of the owners winning that series of arguments.
This is not about politics. This is about the law. (source Yahoo Sports)
Think “Animal House” and the scene after the Deltas go on double-secret probation. Think of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell channeling his inner-John Belushi and saying defiantly, “It’s not over until we say it’s over!”
Well, sort of.
For all of you who think free agency is magically going to start Tuesday morning, think again. The NFL has already filed an appeal questioning whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, seeking relief from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
“We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the NFL wrote in a statement that was released Monday. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”
That’s all well and good and the league is likely going to get its stay. However, here’s the problem with the approach by the league: it’s not going to work in the long run. The owners can hire all the big-time lawyers that they want and pay all the hourly fees necessary, but it’s not going to work. That’s because there’s a very simple issue on the side of the players.
It’s called the law. The law allows the NFL Players Association to decertify. The law allows any union in this country to decertify. This is not a sham, it’s a legal tactic complete with all sorts of risks for the players. The league wants the world to believe the players should be forced to negotiate on terms that favor the league, but that’s just not true.
Furthermore, the league will now have to convince a three-member panel of judges at the Eighth Circuit that what Nelson ruled is somehow wrong. Some people on the league’s side have attempted to reason that such an argument will be easier at the Eighth Circuit because nine of the 11 active judges (the case will randomly be assigned to three of them) were appointed by Republican presidents. Nice theory for those of you who think everything is about politics, but that’s not reality.
Want proof? The last time the league went to the Eighth Circuit was in 2009 to appeal Federal Judge David Doty’s decision allowing Michael Vick to keep approximately $20 million in bonus money that was paid to him by the Atlanta Falcons before he went to prison on dogfighting charges. Doty, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the CBA allowed Vick to keep the money, even though public sentiment was as against Vick as Dean Wormer was against the Deltas.
Doty’s decision was then upheld by the Eighth Circuit by three judges (Steven Colloton, William J. Riley and Roger Leland Wollman) who were appointed by George W. Bush (Colloton and Riley) or Reagan (Wollman).
In short, the league’s lawyers are going to have to convince three judges why they should overturn a pretty sound decision by another federal judge, even if she happens to have been appointed by President Obama. The league will also have to convince the three judges that they have less power to make decisions in this matter than the National Labor Relations Board. The league will have to convince the judges that the power of the owners to lock out the players supersedes the rights of those players to decertify and face the consequences. The league will have to convince the judges that collective bargaining didn’t break down even though the sides made little progress in the nearly three years since the owners opted out of the old collective bargaining agreement.
Good luck with all of that. There’s a better chance of owner Mike Brown leading the Cincinnati Bengals to a Super Bowl title than there is of the owners winning that series of arguments.
This is not about politics. This is about the law. (source Yahoo Sports)
Time for Roger Goodell to cut his losses - Ingles
As spin doctors go, Roger Goodell is his own teaching hospital. The NFL commissioner can perform plastic surgery on the perception of these labor negotiations as if it were a tummy tuck.
Sometimes, especially after he's massaged the facts into a total state of relaxation, you want to shake his hand and say, "Well played, Mauer." That's how good he can be -- which is one of the reasons the NFL owners hired him in the first place.
As the face of the league, Goodell reaches out in very human ways. The $1 salary announcement. The meet-and-greets with NFL fans. The conference calls with season-ticket holders. Very nice.
But his latest propaganda effort is as smooth as driveway gravel. It comes in the form of an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about the latest lockout developments, and it feels more calculated than sincere. It feels spinny.
First of all, if I want to plead my case to America's football public, the Wall Street Journal might not have been my first choice. It's a great place to read about the Federal Reserve's inflation paradox, offshore subsidiaries and the Asia markets. But I don't think its subscriber base includes many members of, say, the Cleveland Browns' Dawg Pound or the Washington Redskins' Hogettes.
Then again, maybe that was the point. Perhaps Goodell was pleading his case to corporate America, not football America. If so, it was another in a conga line of miscalculations by NFL management.
You can read the Goodell op-ed piece for yourself. But the gist of it is this: "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HELP US! THE BIG, MEAN U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND THE EVEN BIGGER, MEANER PLAYERS' UNION LAWYERS ARE GOING TO RUIN THE NFL! WE'LL HAVE -- GASP! -- A FREE-MARKET SYSTEM!"
It is Goodell's doomsday scenario. It is also a scare tactic, and a clumsy one at that.
Goodell and the owners are mad that Judge Susan Nelson ruled for the players and ended the NFL-imposed lockout on Monday. The owners immediately took the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals -- sort of the league's legal Hail Mary pass.
In the meantime, Goodell and his laptop went to work.
Wrote Goodell: "For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history."
Uh, Roger, it wasn't a work stoppage. It was a lockout. A lockout that the owners initiated and executed. There was a work stoppage because the owners told the players to quit coming to work.
And I love how Goodell says the decision "may endanger" the NFL. Not, "I guarantee you it will." Not, "I have concrete proof that it will." Just the possibility that it will. Nothing more. The truth is, the ruling may not endanger the NFL at all.
Goodell also jumps directly from Point A (the lockout has ended) to Point Z (the reign of free-agent terror and chaos is upon us). What happened to all the letters in between?
Does Goodell really think there isn't going to be an eventual negotiated settlement? Does he really think the owners and players aren't going to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement? If he doesn't -- and I've said it before -- he needs to resign immediately.
Goodell and the owners want it both ways. You can cut the hypocrisy with a spork.
More Goodell: "Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players -- those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars -- play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?"
Cue string music.
So let me get this straight: It's OK if NFL owners adhere to free-market principles when they sell their teams to the highest bidder or bolt to another city for a sweetheart stadium and luxury suite deal. But it's not OK for the players to have the same options?
And I hate to break it to Goodell, but the league already favors teams in larger, better-situated markets. That's why Daniel Snyder spends money on his Washington Redskins (hello, Albert Haynesworth) as if he's printing Benjamins in the trainer's room. That's why Jerry Jones can leverage his holdings to build a $1.2 billion JerryWorld. That's why there's a waiting line to become an NFL owner in the first place.
"Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo," Goodell wrote. "Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine."
But weren't the owners also saying the system was broken? Isn't that why the owners locked out the players? They wanted a new, more management-friendly CBA.
Goodell said in the WSJ piece that the current system provides "incentives" that resulted in "two dozen new and renovated stadiums." Interesting, since Goodell has argued in the past that the current system isn't conducive to new infrastructure expenditures such as stadiums. So which is it, Commish?
Perhaps it's time for Goodell and the owners to admit the obvious. They've been outflanked by the players' union/"trade association" on every front: on the negotiating front, the legal front and the public relations front.
Most of all, it's time for the owners to realize they overplayed their position. They went for the pump fake and got burned.
No more op-ed pieces. No more worst-case scenarios. Dr. Goodell needs to give up his spin practice. (source ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski)
Sometimes, especially after he's massaged the facts into a total state of relaxation, you want to shake his hand and say, "Well played, Mauer." That's how good he can be -- which is one of the reasons the NFL owners hired him in the first place.
As the face of the league, Goodell reaches out in very human ways. The $1 salary announcement. The meet-and-greets with NFL fans. The conference calls with season-ticket holders. Very nice.
But his latest propaganda effort is as smooth as driveway gravel. It comes in the form of an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about the latest lockout developments, and it feels more calculated than sincere. It feels spinny.
First of all, if I want to plead my case to America's football public, the Wall Street Journal might not have been my first choice. It's a great place to read about the Federal Reserve's inflation paradox, offshore subsidiaries and the Asia markets. But I don't think its subscriber base includes many members of, say, the Cleveland Browns' Dawg Pound or the Washington Redskins' Hogettes.
Then again, maybe that was the point. Perhaps Goodell was pleading his case to corporate America, not football America. If so, it was another in a conga line of miscalculations by NFL management.
You can read the Goodell op-ed piece for yourself. But the gist of it is this: "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HELP US! THE BIG, MEAN U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND THE EVEN BIGGER, MEANER PLAYERS' UNION LAWYERS ARE GOING TO RUIN THE NFL! WE'LL HAVE -- GASP! -- A FREE-MARKET SYSTEM!"
It is Goodell's doomsday scenario. It is also a scare tactic, and a clumsy one at that.
Goodell and the owners are mad that Judge Susan Nelson ruled for the players and ended the NFL-imposed lockout on Monday. The owners immediately took the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals -- sort of the league's legal Hail Mary pass.
In the meantime, Goodell and his laptop went to work.
Wrote Goodell: "For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history."
Uh, Roger, it wasn't a work stoppage. It was a lockout. A lockout that the owners initiated and executed. There was a work stoppage because the owners told the players to quit coming to work.
And I love how Goodell says the decision "may endanger" the NFL. Not, "I guarantee you it will." Not, "I have concrete proof that it will." Just the possibility that it will. Nothing more. The truth is, the ruling may not endanger the NFL at all.
Goodell also jumps directly from Point A (the lockout has ended) to Point Z (the reign of free-agent terror and chaos is upon us). What happened to all the letters in between?
Does Goodell really think there isn't going to be an eventual negotiated settlement? Does he really think the owners and players aren't going to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement? If he doesn't -- and I've said it before -- he needs to resign immediately.
Goodell and the owners want it both ways. You can cut the hypocrisy with a spork.
More Goodell: "Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players -- those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars -- play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?"
Cue string music.
So let me get this straight: It's OK if NFL owners adhere to free-market principles when they sell their teams to the highest bidder or bolt to another city for a sweetheart stadium and luxury suite deal. But it's not OK for the players to have the same options?
And I hate to break it to Goodell, but the league already favors teams in larger, better-situated markets. That's why Daniel Snyder spends money on his Washington Redskins (hello, Albert Haynesworth) as if he's printing Benjamins in the trainer's room. That's why Jerry Jones can leverage his holdings to build a $1.2 billion JerryWorld. That's why there's a waiting line to become an NFL owner in the first place.
"Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo," Goodell wrote. "Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine."
But weren't the owners also saying the system was broken? Isn't that why the owners locked out the players? They wanted a new, more management-friendly CBA.
Goodell said in the WSJ piece that the current system provides "incentives" that resulted in "two dozen new and renovated stadiums." Interesting, since Goodell has argued in the past that the current system isn't conducive to new infrastructure expenditures such as stadiums. So which is it, Commish?
Perhaps it's time for Goodell and the owners to admit the obvious. They've been outflanked by the players' union/"trade association" on every front: on the negotiating front, the legal front and the public relations front.
Most of all, it's time for the owners to realize they overplayed their position. They went for the pump fake and got burned.
No more op-ed pieces. No more worst-case scenarios. Dr. Goodell needs to give up his spin practice. (source ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski)
Players show up, can't work out - Ingles
One day after a federal judge ended a 45-day lockout, small groups of players showed up at team facilities Tuesday -- let inside but told they would not be allowed to work out on the same day the judge who lifted the lockout said she will take at least until Wednesday to consider whether she should put her order on hold.
There was an exception Tuesday afternoon, however, as Giants defensive tackle Chris Canty worked out in the team's weight room and spoke to head coach Tom Coughlin and other staff members.
"Got a chance to get a good workout in," Canty said. "I am going to come back as long as the door is open. There was no tension here. Coaches are excited to have guys back in the building."
Most players weren't as fortunate and left in a matter of minutes after arriving on a strange day with more questions than answers.
The league issued a statement that called for players to be "treated with courtesy and respect" if they show up. But the NFL said it needs "a few days to sort this out" before "football activities" can take place.
League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.
The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket. The NFLPA is trying to force the league to impose working rules or get the year started without rules. Nelson ordered the owners to respond by 6 p.m. ET Wednesday.
In an appearance on ESPN Radio's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on Tuesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the NFL is ultimately hurting the fans by not letting players get full use of their team's facilities.
"To be in a state where the National Football League is allowing this kind of chaos to occur ... I'm not sure it's a good day for football in the long run," he said.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Tuesday that teams aren't allowing players to work out until they get clarification from the NFL.
"We are in the process of determining throughout the league as to just how we will proceed and when we'll open the new year -- across the league our football year has not started yet."
Little was clear as both sides essentially made up the rules as they went along.
"It's very chaotic for the teams right now," agent Drew Rosenhaus said. "It's not chaotic for the players. Our position is the lockout is over, free agency should begin, signings should begin, offseason workouts should begin, everything should be going on. The longer the NFL doesn't do that and drags this out, the more there are concerns of collusion and violations of antitrust laws."
Buffalo cornerback Leodis McKelvin was turned away at the security gate, told to expect a call from his coach for clarity on when he could return.
"If I said I wasn't expecting it, I'd be lying to you," said Bills teammate George Wilson. "There's all kind of ways around and loopholes."
Washington Redskins wide receiver Anthony Armstrong and linebacker Lorenzo Alexander were met by general manager Bruce Allen and told they could come in but not work out. Both left after a few minutes.
"It was a little weird," Armstrong said. "It felt like you were sneaking into the club or something like that, and they knew you weren't supposed to be in there but they hadn't done anything about it yet. Just a little awkward."
Armstrong said he would call other teammates to let them know there wasn't much of a point to showing up.
"I do have a workout bonus, and since the lockout is lifted out," Alexander said. "I wanted to make sure I took full advantage to come up here and work out because I don't want some technicality to happen later: 'You didn't show up. You didn't come.' And then I'm out of my workout bonus."
Jets players Brandon Moore, Mike DeVito, D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery all reported to the team facility. Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark was in the team's training room, but he said there weren't any strength coaches there.
"I assumed when the lockout was lifted that things would go back to the way it was," Clark said.
Browns receiver Josh Cribbs said it was "disappointing" that he wasn't allowed to work out.
"I came here in workout clothes. I came to the Browns facility to try to work out," he told ESPN.com's James Walker. "I want to get back to work. We have a long road ahead."
The Jets' Ferguson, who has a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, said his appearance should count toward the bonus even though he didn't work out.
"Oh, most definitely," he told ESPNNewYork.com. "I made every opportunity to avail myself to work out. But at this time I wasn't afforded that opportunity."
Tennessee right guard Jake Scott, his team's player representative for the now-dissolved union, spoke to senior executive vice president Steve Underwood and left his team's headquarters 10 minutes later.
Scott said he was told no staff was available to meet with players. This for a team with a new head coach, too, in Mike Munchak.
Miami Dolphins cornerback Will Allen said he was told he can't work out on team property.
Nelson lifted the lockout Monday, writing in an 89-page order that she believed it is causing "irreparable harm" to the players. The NFL questioned whether Nelson exceeded her jurisdiction, and said it would seek an immediate stay of her ruling as well as relief from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
Nelson has given the players until 10 a.m. ET on Wednesday to reply to the league's expedited motion for a stay.
But if her injunction is upheld -- by the judge herself or the appellate court -- the NFL must resume business in some fashion.
"The ruling created more questions than answers," said Kyle Vanden Bosch, a Detroit Lions player representative. "It seems like the dust still has to settle over the next couple of days."
The Bears told kicker Robbie Gould that he "could not work out until clarification comes from the judge's ruling.
"I spoke to both [Bears contract negotiator Cliff] Stein and team president Ted Phillips, and they claimed the reason players won't be able to work out is because of fiscal liability," he told ESPNChicago.com. "They just don't want to run the financial risk of anyone getting hurt."
Vikings linebacker Ben Leber, a free agent and one of the nine NFL players who are plaintiffs in the still-pending antitrust lawsuit against the league, said he was assured by NFLPA leadership that liability should not be a concern in what he called a "Wild West" setting.
"We should feel free to try to get workouts in and try to resume any sort of normalcy that we had before," Leber said.
Nelson's ruling was another rebuke of the NFL in the federal courts in Minnesota, which was established years ago as the venue for the league's collective bargaining system. Three weeks ago, NFL attorney David Boies suggested to Nelson that she shouldn't have jurisdiction over a dispute with an unfair bargaining accusation against the players pending with the National Labor Relations Board.
In her ruling, Nelson rejected that contention and recognized the NFL Players Association's decision to "de-unionize" as legitimate because it has "serious consequences" for the players.
Nelson even referenced her colleague, U.S. District Judge David Doty, who has frequently ruled for the players in the past. Not only did she declare that players are likely to suffer harm by the lockout, a legal requirement for granting the injunction, Nelson wrote they're already feeling the hurt now.
She cited their short careers, arguing that monetary damages wouldn't be enough relief.
What Nelson didn't do, however, was tackle the issue of the antitrust lawsuit filed last month when the union broke up. That, she wrote, "must wait another day."
Owners imposed the lockout after talks broke down March 11 and the players disbanded their union.
Nelson heard arguments on the injunction at a hearing April 6 and ordered the two sides to resume mediation while she was considering her decision. The owners and players, who failed to reach consensus after 16 days of mediated talks earlier this year in Washington, D.C., met for four days with a federal magistrate in Minnesota but did not announce any progress on solving the impasse.
They are not scheduled to meet again until May 16, four days after Doty holds a hearing on whether players should get damages in their related fight with owners over some $4 billion in broadcast revenue.
Jeff Pash, the NFL's executive vice president for labor and legal counsel, said Tuesday he is confident the league will ultimately prevail in the courts.
"Ultimately our legal position will be sustained," Pash predicted in an appearance on "Mike and Mike in the Morning" He also scoffed at Smith's earlier comment on the program that the NFL broke the law by imposing the lockout.
"I think it's quite a stretch to say we violated the law. We're quite confident that our position will be sustained in front of the 8th Circuit." This article was written by staff of espn.com
There was an exception Tuesday afternoon, however, as Giants defensive tackle Chris Canty worked out in the team's weight room and spoke to head coach Tom Coughlin and other staff members.
"Got a chance to get a good workout in," Canty said. "I am going to come back as long as the door is open. There was no tension here. Coaches are excited to have guys back in the building."
Most players weren't as fortunate and left in a matter of minutes after arriving on a strange day with more questions than answers.
The league issued a statement that called for players to be "treated with courtesy and respect" if they show up. But the NFL said it needs "a few days to sort this out" before "football activities" can take place.
League operations were left in limbo for at least another day, too. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she wouldn't rule on the NFL's request for a stay of her order until at least Wednesday, so she can hear from players -- even as attorneys for the players asked her for clarification of her order.
The players are asking Nelson to clarify what it means when she says the lockout is enjoined, according to the judge's docket. The NFLPA is trying to force the league to impose working rules or get the year started without rules. Nelson ordered the owners to respond by 6 p.m. ET Wednesday.
In an appearance on ESPN Radio's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on Tuesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the NFL is ultimately hurting the fans by not letting players get full use of their team's facilities.
"To be in a state where the National Football League is allowing this kind of chaos to occur ... I'm not sure it's a good day for football in the long run," he said.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Tuesday that teams aren't allowing players to work out until they get clarification from the NFL.
"We are in the process of determining throughout the league as to just how we will proceed and when we'll open the new year -- across the league our football year has not started yet."
Little was clear as both sides essentially made up the rules as they went along.
"It's very chaotic for the teams right now," agent Drew Rosenhaus said. "It's not chaotic for the players. Our position is the lockout is over, free agency should begin, signings should begin, offseason workouts should begin, everything should be going on. The longer the NFL doesn't do that and drags this out, the more there are concerns of collusion and violations of antitrust laws."
Buffalo cornerback Leodis McKelvin was turned away at the security gate, told to expect a call from his coach for clarity on when he could return.
"If I said I wasn't expecting it, I'd be lying to you," said Bills teammate George Wilson. "There's all kind of ways around and loopholes."
Washington Redskins wide receiver Anthony Armstrong and linebacker Lorenzo Alexander were met by general manager Bruce Allen and told they could come in but not work out. Both left after a few minutes.
"It was a little weird," Armstrong said. "It felt like you were sneaking into the club or something like that, and they knew you weren't supposed to be in there but they hadn't done anything about it yet. Just a little awkward."
Armstrong said he would call other teammates to let them know there wasn't much of a point to showing up.
"I do have a workout bonus, and since the lockout is lifted out," Alexander said. "I wanted to make sure I took full advantage to come up here and work out because I don't want some technicality to happen later: 'You didn't show up. You didn't come.' And then I'm out of my workout bonus."
Jets players Brandon Moore, Mike DeVito, D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Jerricho Cotchery all reported to the team facility. Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark was in the team's training room, but he said there weren't any strength coaches there.
"I assumed when the lockout was lifted that things would go back to the way it was," Clark said.
Browns receiver Josh Cribbs said it was "disappointing" that he wasn't allowed to work out.
"I came here in workout clothes. I came to the Browns facility to try to work out," he told ESPN.com's James Walker. "I want to get back to work. We have a long road ahead."
The Jets' Ferguson, who has a league-high $750,000 workout bonus, said his appearance should count toward the bonus even though he didn't work out.
"Oh, most definitely," he told ESPNNewYork.com. "I made every opportunity to avail myself to work out. But at this time I wasn't afforded that opportunity."
Tennessee right guard Jake Scott, his team's player representative for the now-dissolved union, spoke to senior executive vice president Steve Underwood and left his team's headquarters 10 minutes later.
Scott said he was told no staff was available to meet with players. This for a team with a new head coach, too, in Mike Munchak.
Miami Dolphins cornerback Will Allen said he was told he can't work out on team property.
Nelson lifted the lockout Monday, writing in an 89-page order that she believed it is causing "irreparable harm" to the players. The NFL questioned whether Nelson exceeded her jurisdiction, and said it would seek an immediate stay of her ruling as well as relief from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
Nelson has given the players until 10 a.m. ET on Wednesday to reply to the league's expedited motion for a stay.
But if her injunction is upheld -- by the judge herself or the appellate court -- the NFL must resume business in some fashion.
"The ruling created more questions than answers," said Kyle Vanden Bosch, a Detroit Lions player representative. "It seems like the dust still has to settle over the next couple of days."
The Bears told kicker Robbie Gould that he "could not work out until clarification comes from the judge's ruling.
"I spoke to both [Bears contract negotiator Cliff] Stein and team president Ted Phillips, and they claimed the reason players won't be able to work out is because of fiscal liability," he told ESPNChicago.com. "They just don't want to run the financial risk of anyone getting hurt."
Vikings linebacker Ben Leber, a free agent and one of the nine NFL players who are plaintiffs in the still-pending antitrust lawsuit against the league, said he was assured by NFLPA leadership that liability should not be a concern in what he called a "Wild West" setting.
"We should feel free to try to get workouts in and try to resume any sort of normalcy that we had before," Leber said.
Nelson's ruling was another rebuke of the NFL in the federal courts in Minnesota, which was established years ago as the venue for the league's collective bargaining system. Three weeks ago, NFL attorney David Boies suggested to Nelson that she shouldn't have jurisdiction over a dispute with an unfair bargaining accusation against the players pending with the National Labor Relations Board.
In her ruling, Nelson rejected that contention and recognized the NFL Players Association's decision to "de-unionize" as legitimate because it has "serious consequences" for the players.
Nelson even referenced her colleague, U.S. District Judge David Doty, who has frequently ruled for the players in the past. Not only did she declare that players are likely to suffer harm by the lockout, a legal requirement for granting the injunction, Nelson wrote they're already feeling the hurt now.
She cited their short careers, arguing that monetary damages wouldn't be enough relief.
What Nelson didn't do, however, was tackle the issue of the antitrust lawsuit filed last month when the union broke up. That, she wrote, "must wait another day."
Owners imposed the lockout after talks broke down March 11 and the players disbanded their union.
Nelson heard arguments on the injunction at a hearing April 6 and ordered the two sides to resume mediation while she was considering her decision. The owners and players, who failed to reach consensus after 16 days of mediated talks earlier this year in Washington, D.C., met for four days with a federal magistrate in Minnesota but did not announce any progress on solving the impasse.
They are not scheduled to meet again until May 16, four days after Doty holds a hearing on whether players should get damages in their related fight with owners over some $4 billion in broadcast revenue.
Jeff Pash, the NFL's executive vice president for labor and legal counsel, said Tuesday he is confident the league will ultimately prevail in the courts.
"Ultimately our legal position will be sustained," Pash predicted in an appearance on "Mike and Mike in the Morning" He also scoffed at Smith's earlier comment on the program that the NFL broke the law by imposing the lockout.
"I think it's quite a stretch to say we violated the law. We're quite confident that our position will be sustained in front of the 8th Circuit." This article was written by staff of espn.com
From the desk of Roger Goodell - Ingles
Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.
For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.
What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.
For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.
For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.
Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.
Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.
In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.
Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.
Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:
• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."
• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.
• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.
• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.
• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.
• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.
• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.
• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.
Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.
In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.
Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?
Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.
Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?
These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This article was written by Roger Goodell and appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.
What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.
For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.
For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.
Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.
Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.
In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.
Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.
Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:
• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."
• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.
• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.
• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.
• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.
• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.
• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.
• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.
Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.
In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.
Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?
Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.
Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?
These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This article was written by Roger Goodell and appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
Injunction a major setback for owners - Ingles
In an 89-page ruling issued Monday, a federal judge in St. Paul, Minn., ordered an end to the NFL lockout. The ruling from Judge Susan Richard Nelson raises significant legal questions about the lockout, the relationship between the owners and the players, and the 2011 season. Here are some of the questions and their answers:
How important is the ruling to end the lockout?
It is very important. Although it was not entirely unexpected, it is a triumph for the players and a major setback for the owners. The owners' decision to lock out the players came after nearly three years of planning. It was a major initiative. It was supposed to be a dramatic, game-changing maneuver that would allow the owners to recapture league money the owners gave to the players in an agreement in 2006. Now, instead of enjoying the leverage of a lockout that leaves the players facing major uncertainties, it is the owners who are facing uncertainties. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners will continue to talk about Monday's decision as a small step in a long process, and they will appeal it immediately. But the decision is a critical win for the players. An injunction is the most drastic order a court can make in a civil matter. It is always difficult to obtain an injunction. Obtaining this injunction against formidable opposition from the owners is a significant vindication for the players and their lawyers.
What happens next?
The owners have asked for a "stay of execution" on the injunction order. A stay is simply a delay in the time the injunction takes effect. A stay in this situation would keep the lockout in effect until the owners complete an appeal of the decision Nelson made Monday. The owners' attorneys will argue Nelson should issue a stay to allow them to preserve the status quo and to appeal her decision. A stay is frequently granted in similar situations. If Nelson does not grant the stay, the owners' attorneys will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to issue a stay that would continue the lockout.
Will the owners succeed in obtaining a stay that would continue the lockout?
In similar situations, the owners typically would succeed in obtaining a stay and would be allowed to continue their lockout of the players. That might not happen in this case. A quick reading of Nelson's 89-page opinion shows that the judge is concerned about the "irreparable damage" the lockout would do to NFL players. She notes with approval the sworn statements from veteran NFLPA attorney Richard Berthelsen and numerous players that players' careers are short due to the "ever-present risk of career-ending injury" and that "the loss of an entire year in a short professional athletic career cannot be recaptured and cannot be compensated by damages."
The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.
Is the ruling to end the lockout a surprise?
Yes, it is a bit of a surprise. It certainly is a surprise for the owners. Injunctions are granted only in the most compelling of circumstances. The players were required to show the irreparable harm already described. They were required to show that they would prevail in a full trial later on the issues raised by the lockout. And they were required to show that their plea was in the public interest. It was a tough case to make, but the players managed to do it.
What arguments did the owners make in support of their lockout?
The owners responded to the players' demand for an injunction ending the lockout with a highly technical argument based on the complicated jurisdictions of a federal court and the National Labor Relations Board. They claimed that the players' decertification of their union was a sham and that the whole thing was a labor dispute. Nelson did not buy any of it. In her opinion, she painstakingly goes through the owners' arguments and rejects them all. She was highly impressive in her reasoning and her language as she set aside each of the legal authorities that the owners offered. The owners treated the players' lawsuit as a labor issue instead of an antitrust issue. It is a strategy that has worked occasionally for the owners in earlier disputes but has failed more often than it has succeeded.
When the case reaches the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, will the owners benefit from its conservative, pro-business reputation?
It is possible that the owners' arguments will find a more receptive audience in the higher court. But "conservative" and "pro-business" might not work in this case in the same way they work in other cases. The players are individuals who are seeking to bargain as individuals in a free market. They decertified their union. Their ideal situation would be to bargain as individual players offering their services to several of the league's 32 teams. It would be the kind of open market that conservatives relish. In addition to their free-market ideas, the players have walked away from their union. Is a conservative court likely to accept the owners' idea that the players should be compelled to return to their union and act like a union? Conservatives do not often lean in the direction of establishing stronger unions. Although the higher court might be conservative and pro-business, that does not guarantee anything for the owners.
If there is no lockout, what rules govern the relationship between the players and the owners? What, for example, is the definition of free agency now?
These are good questions, and there are no answers at this point. If the owners fail in their attempts to obtain a stay of the order Nelson entered Monday, the owners might try to impose new rules. Or they might try to negotiate a new deal with the players. Or they might try to do both. It's likely that they will try to do both.
What are the most important effects of the court decision?
There are two important effects. The first is that the players have leveled the field for future negotiations. If the injunction remains in effect (and I believe it will remain in effect), the players have new and important leverage in their talks with owners. Instead of facing a loss of income and the loss of a season, they face the prospect of working under a new set of rules and, ultimately, a better deal with the owners.
The second important effect it that Goodell and the NFL lawyers have some explaining to do. They must find a way to explain to dubious owners how the lockout could go so wrong. In addition to the loss on the lockout injunction, the owners face serious problems in the players' lawsuit attacking the league's broadcast contracts that require networks to pay for games that are not played. Despite the years of planning, the lockout has not gone well. This article was written by Lester Munson and appeared on espn.com
How important is the ruling to end the lockout?
It is very important. Although it was not entirely unexpected, it is a triumph for the players and a major setback for the owners. The owners' decision to lock out the players came after nearly three years of planning. It was a major initiative. It was supposed to be a dramatic, game-changing maneuver that would allow the owners to recapture league money the owners gave to the players in an agreement in 2006. Now, instead of enjoying the leverage of a lockout that leaves the players facing major uncertainties, it is the owners who are facing uncertainties. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners will continue to talk about Monday's decision as a small step in a long process, and they will appeal it immediately. But the decision is a critical win for the players. An injunction is the most drastic order a court can make in a civil matter. It is always difficult to obtain an injunction. Obtaining this injunction against formidable opposition from the owners is a significant vindication for the players and their lawyers.
What happens next?
The owners have asked for a "stay of execution" on the injunction order. A stay is simply a delay in the time the injunction takes effect. A stay in this situation would keep the lockout in effect until the owners complete an appeal of the decision Nelson made Monday. The owners' attorneys will argue Nelson should issue a stay to allow them to preserve the status quo and to appeal her decision. A stay is frequently granted in similar situations. If Nelson does not grant the stay, the owners' attorneys will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to issue a stay that would continue the lockout.
Will the owners succeed in obtaining a stay that would continue the lockout?
In similar situations, the owners typically would succeed in obtaining a stay and would be allowed to continue their lockout of the players. That might not happen in this case. A quick reading of Nelson's 89-page opinion shows that the judge is concerned about the "irreparable damage" the lockout would do to NFL players. She notes with approval the sworn statements from veteran NFLPA attorney Richard Berthelsen and numerous players that players' careers are short due to the "ever-present risk of career-ending injury" and that "the loss of an entire year in a short professional athletic career cannot be recaptured and cannot be compensated by damages."
The judge also suggests in her opinion that the lockout would do so much damage to so many players that it cannot be allowed to continue. She feels strongly about the damage the lockout will do and is unlikely to issue the stay that would put the lockout back into effect. When judges of the higher court consider the possibility of a stay, they will first consider Nelson's opinion, a detailed and impressive recitation of the situation. Even though a stay is normally the next step in this process, it is far from certain the owners will obtain the stay they seek. My guess -- and I should emphasize that it's only an educated guess -- is that their demand for a stay will fall on deaf ears and the lockout will have ended with Nelson's order Monday.
Is the ruling to end the lockout a surprise?
Yes, it is a bit of a surprise. It certainly is a surprise for the owners. Injunctions are granted only in the most compelling of circumstances. The players were required to show the irreparable harm already described. They were required to show that they would prevail in a full trial later on the issues raised by the lockout. And they were required to show that their plea was in the public interest. It was a tough case to make, but the players managed to do it.
What arguments did the owners make in support of their lockout?
The owners responded to the players' demand for an injunction ending the lockout with a highly technical argument based on the complicated jurisdictions of a federal court and the National Labor Relations Board. They claimed that the players' decertification of their union was a sham and that the whole thing was a labor dispute. Nelson did not buy any of it. In her opinion, she painstakingly goes through the owners' arguments and rejects them all. She was highly impressive in her reasoning and her language as she set aside each of the legal authorities that the owners offered. The owners treated the players' lawsuit as a labor issue instead of an antitrust issue. It is a strategy that has worked occasionally for the owners in earlier disputes but has failed more often than it has succeeded.
When the case reaches the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, will the owners benefit from its conservative, pro-business reputation?
It is possible that the owners' arguments will find a more receptive audience in the higher court. But "conservative" and "pro-business" might not work in this case in the same way they work in other cases. The players are individuals who are seeking to bargain as individuals in a free market. They decertified their union. Their ideal situation would be to bargain as individual players offering their services to several of the league's 32 teams. It would be the kind of open market that conservatives relish. In addition to their free-market ideas, the players have walked away from their union. Is a conservative court likely to accept the owners' idea that the players should be compelled to return to their union and act like a union? Conservatives do not often lean in the direction of establishing stronger unions. Although the higher court might be conservative and pro-business, that does not guarantee anything for the owners.
If there is no lockout, what rules govern the relationship between the players and the owners? What, for example, is the definition of free agency now?
These are good questions, and there are no answers at this point. If the owners fail in their attempts to obtain a stay of the order Nelson entered Monday, the owners might try to impose new rules. Or they might try to negotiate a new deal with the players. Or they might try to do both. It's likely that they will try to do both.
What are the most important effects of the court decision?
There are two important effects. The first is that the players have leveled the field for future negotiations. If the injunction remains in effect (and I believe it will remain in effect), the players have new and important leverage in their talks with owners. Instead of facing a loss of income and the loss of a season, they face the prospect of working under a new set of rules and, ultimately, a better deal with the owners.
The second important effect it that Goodell and the NFL lawyers have some explaining to do. They must find a way to explain to dubious owners how the lockout could go so wrong. In addition to the loss on the lockout injunction, the owners face serious problems in the players' lawsuit attacking the league's broadcast contracts that require networks to pay for games that are not played. Despite the years of planning, the lockout has not gone well. This article was written by Lester Munson and appeared on espn.com
Lockout lifted, now what? - Ingles
When the news broke Monday afternoon that United States District Judge Susan Richard Nelson had lifted the N.F.L. lockout, confusion overtook a league known for micromanagement. Players called their agents. Agents called teams. Teams called the league office. Reporters called everyone. Yet all those questions yielded more confusion, at least initially.
Jay Feely, the Arizona Cardinals’ player representative, was on vacation in the Florida Keys when his phone started ringing. He planned to send a blanket e-mail to teammates Monday night. Already, they had pelted him with text messages. Could they report to work tomorrow? Call their coaches? Get treatment at team facilities for injuries?
“I really don’t have the answers to any of those questions yet,” Feely said.
What Feely and his fellow N.F.L. players did have was an early, perhaps brief victory against the league in their labor negotiations. Feely said Nelson’s ruling in United States District Court in Minneapolis, which the N.F.L. has appealed, “confirms our contention that the law was on our side.”
He added: “Really, it’s what we expected all along. There’s still a lot to go through. But every player should be hopeful that we can get back to doing what we want to do, playing football, working out with our teammates.”
Feely cautioned against premature celebration, as did Wes Bridges, an agent for N.F.L. players at Enter-Sports Management who is also a lawyer working regularly at the federal District Court level. Bridges said he would instruct his players to proceed as they had before the ruling, at least until he heard otherwise, from teams or the league.
“The stay is pretty much going to happen,” Bridges said. “I’d be shocked if that were not to happen. Not much has changed at this point. We’re probably looking at a month or two before a decision is reached.”
Much of the confusion centered on the next 24 to 48 or hours, or what teams, players and agents could do between Nelson’s ruling and the next expected ruling, by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It could grant a stay or return league operations to what they were before the lockout.
The Jets referred reporters to the N.F.L.’s statement. An N.F.L. spokesman did not immediately return requests for clarification. An hour after the ruling, Giants General Manager Jerry Reese, when asked in a text message if team officials or coaches could talk to players, which is forbidden during the lockout, replied, “We have no information at this point.” Round and round it went.
The feeling of agents and players was that until a stay is granted or denied, teams will operate as they did before Nelson’s ruling.
At issue, in part, are the rules themselves. Without a collective bargaining agreement, there essentially are none — no rules on free agency, the salary cap, etc.
Several players, if not most, also have sometimes-lucrative bonuses for workouts in their contracts. One agent said he would send his players to team facilities simply because the next few days could count toward their participation rates.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that safety Ryan Clark, the Steelers’ player representative, planned to round up teammates and report to work on Tuesday morning. But what will happen when they get there? That reality remains complex.
“We’re ready to go,” said Jonathan Feinsod, whose agency represents Darrelle Revis, Vincent Jackson and Roddy White, among other Pro Bowl players. “This is such uncharted territory. We just don’t know.”
For Feely, uncertainty has been the worst part of recent months. An off-season without free agency, without the conditioning programs, with the threat of no minicamps that normally would take place next month, felt unnatural and strange.
Feely said he would prefer the N.F.L. return to regular off-season business during the appeal process, for the players who cannot receive counseling during a lockout, who cannot work out with strength coaches or visit the trainers who know them best.
“All the things that go along with the business of football have been put on hold,” Feely said.
Nelson’s ruling brought the possibility that a league on hold could switch back to on, and soon. Feely said the player representatives had a conference call set for Tuesday night, but even that remained uncertain. Players, agents, teams, everyone in the business of football was searching for answers Monday night. This article was written by Greg Bishop and appeared in The New York Times.
Jay Feely, the Arizona Cardinals’ player representative, was on vacation in the Florida Keys when his phone started ringing. He planned to send a blanket e-mail to teammates Monday night. Already, they had pelted him with text messages. Could they report to work tomorrow? Call their coaches? Get treatment at team facilities for injuries?
“I really don’t have the answers to any of those questions yet,” Feely said.
What Feely and his fellow N.F.L. players did have was an early, perhaps brief victory against the league in their labor negotiations. Feely said Nelson’s ruling in United States District Court in Minneapolis, which the N.F.L. has appealed, “confirms our contention that the law was on our side.”
He added: “Really, it’s what we expected all along. There’s still a lot to go through. But every player should be hopeful that we can get back to doing what we want to do, playing football, working out with our teammates.”
Feely cautioned against premature celebration, as did Wes Bridges, an agent for N.F.L. players at Enter-Sports Management who is also a lawyer working regularly at the federal District Court level. Bridges said he would instruct his players to proceed as they had before the ruling, at least until he heard otherwise, from teams or the league.
“The stay is pretty much going to happen,” Bridges said. “I’d be shocked if that were not to happen. Not much has changed at this point. We’re probably looking at a month or two before a decision is reached.”
Much of the confusion centered on the next 24 to 48 or hours, or what teams, players and agents could do between Nelson’s ruling and the next expected ruling, by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It could grant a stay or return league operations to what they were before the lockout.
The Jets referred reporters to the N.F.L.’s statement. An N.F.L. spokesman did not immediately return requests for clarification. An hour after the ruling, Giants General Manager Jerry Reese, when asked in a text message if team officials or coaches could talk to players, which is forbidden during the lockout, replied, “We have no information at this point.” Round and round it went.
The feeling of agents and players was that until a stay is granted or denied, teams will operate as they did before Nelson’s ruling.
At issue, in part, are the rules themselves. Without a collective bargaining agreement, there essentially are none — no rules on free agency, the salary cap, etc.
Several players, if not most, also have sometimes-lucrative bonuses for workouts in their contracts. One agent said he would send his players to team facilities simply because the next few days could count toward their participation rates.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that safety Ryan Clark, the Steelers’ player representative, planned to round up teammates and report to work on Tuesday morning. But what will happen when they get there? That reality remains complex.
“We’re ready to go,” said Jonathan Feinsod, whose agency represents Darrelle Revis, Vincent Jackson and Roddy White, among other Pro Bowl players. “This is such uncharted territory. We just don’t know.”
For Feely, uncertainty has been the worst part of recent months. An off-season without free agency, without the conditioning programs, with the threat of no minicamps that normally would take place next month, felt unnatural and strange.
Feely said he would prefer the N.F.L. return to regular off-season business during the appeal process, for the players who cannot receive counseling during a lockout, who cannot work out with strength coaches or visit the trainers who know them best.
“All the things that go along with the business of football have been put on hold,” Feely said.
Nelson’s ruling brought the possibility that a league on hold could switch back to on, and soon. Feely said the player representatives had a conference call set for Tuesday night, but even that remained uncertain. Players, agents, teams, everyone in the business of football was searching for answers Monday night. This article was written by Greg Bishop and appeared in The New York Times.
Lockout presents questions at draft - Ingles
Over the years, the NFL draft has settled into a rhythm.
After the end of the college season, draft-eligible players pick an agent, go to the NFL scouting combine, have a pro day, visit potential teams and wait for the big moment.
Early first-round picks will still shake hands with commissioner Roger Goodell, and 254 players will feel the rush of being selected on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
The difference this year is, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement or court-ordered ending of a lockout, draftees will then wait for a second phone call telling them it's time to go to work.
It's a call that might not come for days, weeks or even months. America's finest young football players are facing an unprecedented false start.
"You're kind of in limbo," Cal running back Shane Vereen said.
Putting a draft class on ice is only one of the ramifications of NFL labor unrest as it pertains to the draft.
Veteran players can't be traded, meaning all deals will have to be made with other draft picks, either this year or in future drafts. Acquiring picks from drafts beyond 2011 brings with it some risk because there are no guarantees the next labor agreement will include a draft.
First-round picks can be flown in for media opportunities with their new teams, but barring a surprise agreement or court-mandated end to the lockout, all contact between the player and organization must cease.
Instead
"It's definitely going to be weird that right after the draft, you can't get your playbook, can't talk to your team or your coaches," said Stanford nose tackle Sione Fua, projected as a mid- to late-round pick. "I've got to do my part, stay in shape, just be ready for minicamps or training camp when the call comes."
With veteran players prohibited from interacting with their teams and free agency on hold, NFL teams have reversed the process of infusing talent.
Instead of signing free agents then filling needs with the draft, teams are looking closer and harder at this draft because coaching and scouting staffs have a lot of extra time on their hands.
When Eastern Washington running back Taiwan Jones out of Deer Valley High held a pro day recently at Los Medanos College, representatives from 27 teams showed up to gather information.
"I've visited with several former colleagues that said these draft meetings are more thorough than ever before," ESPN analyst and former NFL coach Jon Gruden said by conference call. "Every coach, every scout, every member of the organization is sitting in on these meetings to study and learn about every player available because there are no players in the building for the offseason program."
Raiders coach Hue Jackson said the extra hours devoted to dissecting each player can be good or bad.
"You have more time to focus from round to round, player to player, every different scenario you can come up with in your mind," Jackson said. "But I still think there's no exact science to it all. Yes, there's more time "... maybe more time to make a mistake."
Trent Baalke, the 49ers general manager, concedes there can be cases of over-analysis. He combats it with video.
"There's always a risk, but we try to go back to the film," Baalke said. "We can get enamored with the combine workouts, the pro day workouts, we can get enamored with interview sessions, but at some point you have to go back to the film. We try to base the board on what the film tells us."
Once they're selected, players will work out on their own, often with trainers hired by their agents, to make sure they're changing from combine-specific workouts to those preparing them to play football.
Fua and Stanford teammate Ryan Whalen, a mid- to late-round projection as a wide receiver, remain in school, pursuing their degrees, and will work out at the school facility until notified they can begin their NFL careers.
"I want to play football as soon as I can and hopefully that gets resolved, but school is keeping me busy, it's keeping my mind focused," said Whalen, who attended Monte Vista High.
At the NFL scouting combine, Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh could do little more than shrug his shoulders at questions concerning team-building during a lockout.
"No one has ever been down this road before," Harbaugh said. "It's out of our hands." This article was written by Jerry McDonald and appeared in The Contra Costa Times.
After the end of the college season, draft-eligible players pick an agent, go to the NFL scouting combine, have a pro day, visit potential teams and wait for the big moment.
Early first-round picks will still shake hands with commissioner Roger Goodell, and 254 players will feel the rush of being selected on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
The difference this year is, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement or court-ordered ending of a lockout, draftees will then wait for a second phone call telling them it's time to go to work.
It's a call that might not come for days, weeks or even months. America's finest young football players are facing an unprecedented false start.
"You're kind of in limbo," Cal running back Shane Vereen said.
Putting a draft class on ice is only one of the ramifications of NFL labor unrest as it pertains to the draft.
Veteran players can't be traded, meaning all deals will have to be made with other draft picks, either this year or in future drafts. Acquiring picks from drafts beyond 2011 brings with it some risk because there are no guarantees the next labor agreement will include a draft.
First-round picks can be flown in for media opportunities with their new teams, but barring a surprise agreement or court-mandated end to the lockout, all contact between the player and organization must cease.
Instead
"It's definitely going to be weird that right after the draft, you can't get your playbook, can't talk to your team or your coaches," said Stanford nose tackle Sione Fua, projected as a mid- to late-round pick. "I've got to do my part, stay in shape, just be ready for minicamps or training camp when the call comes."
With veteran players prohibited from interacting with their teams and free agency on hold, NFL teams have reversed the process of infusing talent.
Instead of signing free agents then filling needs with the draft, teams are looking closer and harder at this draft because coaching and scouting staffs have a lot of extra time on their hands.
When Eastern Washington running back Taiwan Jones out of Deer Valley High held a pro day recently at Los Medanos College, representatives from 27 teams showed up to gather information.
"I've visited with several former colleagues that said these draft meetings are more thorough than ever before," ESPN analyst and former NFL coach Jon Gruden said by conference call. "Every coach, every scout, every member of the organization is sitting in on these meetings to study and learn about every player available because there are no players in the building for the offseason program."
Raiders coach Hue Jackson said the extra hours devoted to dissecting each player can be good or bad.
"You have more time to focus from round to round, player to player, every different scenario you can come up with in your mind," Jackson said. "But I still think there's no exact science to it all. Yes, there's more time "... maybe more time to make a mistake."
Trent Baalke, the 49ers general manager, concedes there can be cases of over-analysis. He combats it with video.
"There's always a risk, but we try to go back to the film," Baalke said. "We can get enamored with the combine workouts, the pro day workouts, we can get enamored with interview sessions, but at some point you have to go back to the film. We try to base the board on what the film tells us."
Once they're selected, players will work out on their own, often with trainers hired by their agents, to make sure they're changing from combine-specific workouts to those preparing them to play football.
Fua and Stanford teammate Ryan Whalen, a mid- to late-round projection as a wide receiver, remain in school, pursuing their degrees, and will work out at the school facility until notified they can begin their NFL careers.
"I want to play football as soon as I can and hopefully that gets resolved, but school is keeping me busy, it's keeping my mind focused," said Whalen, who attended Monte Vista High.
At the NFL scouting combine, Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh could do little more than shrug his shoulders at questions concerning team-building during a lockout.
"No one has ever been down this road before," Harbaugh said. "It's out of our hands." This article was written by Jerry McDonald and appeared in The Contra Costa Times.
NFL Armageddon 2011: UFL is suffering too - Ingles
As the NFL prepares for next week's draft uncertain whether it will play in 2011, the United Football League is moving forward with plans for its third season, even though it, too, is dealing with uncertainties.
The league still has no TV contract. Expansion plans are in limbo, so the schedule can't be finalized. Additionally, the league is still paying off creditors; about $100,000 in debt is tied to the two-time champion Las Vegas Locomotives.
"It doesn't change our position," commissioner Michael Huyghue said Thursday after the UFL's owners meeting in San Francisco. "We're still committed to play in 2011."
Locomotives president and coach Jim Fassel is preparing for the May 2 UFL Draft, which will consist of 10 rounds for rookies who go drafted by the NFL. The Locos also were assigned 10 free agents who already have played professionally. That list is expected to be released next week.
"It was good to have the owners and the coaches together," Fassel said. "There's a lot of stuff we're having to react to. But it's all doable, and we'll be ready to go come August."
Huyghue said the NFL lockout, in its second month, has hampered the UFL's attempt to lock up a TV deal, which also is tying up its game schedule.
"I was hoping (the lockout) would speed things up," Huyghue said. "But in reality it has slowed us down. We have to be on a channel that provides coverage for us if the NFL lockout ends and still grows with us. But we still have the prospect to go back to Versus or HDNet."
Huyghue said the league has two tentative schedules, one with a Friday-Saturday format that assumes the NFL and players will reach a contract agreement, and a Saturday-Sunday-Monday lineup in the event the lockout continues into the fall. In either case, Huyghue said the league plans to start the season on the weekend of Aug. 12 to 14.
The UFL is undecided on whether to add a sixth team, with Portland, Ore., Salt Lake City and Chattanooga, Tenn., under consideration. If a sixth team is added, the schedule will expand to 10 games. If the UFL remains a five-team league -- Las Vegas, Sacramento, Omaha, Hartford and Virginia (replacing Florida) -- the eight-game schedule will continue.
"We're still talking to possible investors," Huyghue said. "We think we could get that sixth team up and running fairly quickly." This article was written by Steve Carp and appeared in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The league still has no TV contract. Expansion plans are in limbo, so the schedule can't be finalized. Additionally, the league is still paying off creditors; about $100,000 in debt is tied to the two-time champion Las Vegas Locomotives.
"It doesn't change our position," commissioner Michael Huyghue said Thursday after the UFL's owners meeting in San Francisco. "We're still committed to play in 2011."
Locomotives president and coach Jim Fassel is preparing for the May 2 UFL Draft, which will consist of 10 rounds for rookies who go drafted by the NFL. The Locos also were assigned 10 free agents who already have played professionally. That list is expected to be released next week.
"It was good to have the owners and the coaches together," Fassel said. "There's a lot of stuff we're having to react to. But it's all doable, and we'll be ready to go come August."
Huyghue said the NFL lockout, in its second month, has hampered the UFL's attempt to lock up a TV deal, which also is tying up its game schedule.
"I was hoping (the lockout) would speed things up," Huyghue said. "But in reality it has slowed us down. We have to be on a channel that provides coverage for us if the NFL lockout ends and still grows with us. But we still have the prospect to go back to Versus or HDNet."
Huyghue said the league has two tentative schedules, one with a Friday-Saturday format that assumes the NFL and players will reach a contract agreement, and a Saturday-Sunday-Monday lineup in the event the lockout continues into the fall. In either case, Huyghue said the league plans to start the season on the weekend of Aug. 12 to 14.
The UFL is undecided on whether to add a sixth team, with Portland, Ore., Salt Lake City and Chattanooga, Tenn., under consideration. If a sixth team is added, the schedule will expand to 10 games. If the UFL remains a five-team league -- Las Vegas, Sacramento, Omaha, Hartford and Virginia (replacing Florida) -- the eight-game schedule will continue.
"We're still talking to possible investors," Huyghue said. "We think we could get that sixth team up and running fairly quickly." This article was written by Steve Carp and appeared in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)