NFL Labour Deal: Owners Opt Out

[fredr123]

Edit: beaten to it in the NFL Post Season thread. Drats.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

Interesting situation if nothing else than for the parallels to the NHL CBA.

The NFL officially notified its players union on Tuesday that it will opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement, which could lead to a season without a salary cap in 2010 and a possible lockout in 2011.

The NHL CBA is six years in duration (through the 2010-11 season) with the NHLPA having the option to re-open the agreement after Year Four (after the 2008-09 season). The NHLPA also has the option of extending the CBA for an additional year at the end of the term.

"A collective bargaining agreement has to work for both sides," the NFL said Tuesday morning. "If the agreement provides inadequate incentives to invest in the future, it will not work for management or labor. And, in the context of a professional sports league, if the agreement does not afford all clubs an opportunity to be competitive, the league can lose its appeal."

The NFL has been touted as the epitome of successful professional sports. It's also been held out as the perfect example of parity. Now it appears the owners are challenging each of these assertions.

According to the NFL, clubs are obligated by the collective bargaining agreement to spend almost $4.5 billion on player costs in 2008. Players received around 60 percent of league revenues. Growing costs of stadium construction and operations also figured into Tuesday's decision.

The NHL CBA started out with 54% of revenues going towards the players.

"The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the cost of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest shares; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country," the NFL said.

NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler told the Wall Street Journal prior to Tuesday's announcement that if the owners were to opt out, the union "plans to ask for a greater share of revenues."

Sounds like the owners are complaining that the costs of building new stadiums and other stuff is eating too much of their share of the revenue. Is it reasonable to expect the players to share in a chunk of these expenses (e.g., by accepting a smaller percentage of revenues)?



Doesn't seem like the NFLPA is buying the owners' arguments. No surprise there.

[troutman]

This may deserve a seperate thread.

I hear the rich owners (ex. Jerry Jones) want to be able to spend more than the small market owners. I think that would be a huge mistake. The NFL is the best pro sports league in the world, because Green Bay can compete with New York.

[burn_baby_burn]

^ Not going to happen. Restrictions are already in place.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...ampaign=ec0005

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

^ Not going to happen. Restrictions are already in place.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...ampaign=ec0005

Yes, but I thought I heard the rich owners are lobbying to have these restrictions scrapped.

[fredr123]

More on the opt out from SI's Peter King:

When the current CBA was put in place in 2006, the owners installed an onerous set of guidelines if either side were to opt out of the agreement: those guidelines would be in place for the 2010 season only. The highlights:

RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TOP EIGHT TEAMS IN FOOTBALL: If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency.

All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back.

Upshaw told me that if the players have to play under those conditions in 2010, that would be the last year they would do so. He said in 2011 and beyond the players would be free agents whenever their contracts expired. That, obviously, is a scenario the owners would loathe. (emphasis mine)

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Upshaw told me that if the players have to play under those conditions in 2010, that would be the last year they would do so. He said in 2011 and beyond the players would be free agents whenever their contracts expired. That, obviously, is a scenario the owners would loathe. (emphasis mine)

Which would result in the Players being Locked Out. I don't think it will get to that. It seems the NFL and the NFLPA have been a lot more proactive in their approach to labour negotiations than the NHL for example. The owners opting out of the current deal now instead of in November is a great indication of that. Unlike the NHL and the NHLPA which waited untill D-day and then never really came to the table untill the season had been lost.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by troutman

Yes, but I thought I heard the rich owners are lobbying to have these restrictions scrapped.

Even if they were they would need 2/3rd's of the vote to have them eliminated.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Which would result in the Players being Locked Out. I don't think it will get to that. It seems the NFL and the NFLPA have been a lot more proactive in their approach to labour negotiations than the NHL for example. The owners opting out of the current deal now instead of in November is a great indication of that. Unlike the NHL and the NHLPA which waited untill D-day and then never really came to the table untill the season had been lost.

I find it interesting that in the event either side opts out of the current labour deal these kinds of restrictions are placed on both sides. It's a built-in motivation to get a new deal done sooner rather than later. The players get dinged with free agency changes and additional protections. The owners get dinged with changes to the salary cap and the top 8 teams get extra restrictions. These things should create some genuine urgency to see a new deal reached.