The looming NFL labour war

[Montana Moe]

Players are RFA's until their 6th year under the uncapped year, typically players are only RFA until their 4th year.

There is likely going to be a second and possibly third franchise tag available to teams to further restrict free agent movement.

The top 8 teams in the playoffs are restricted in their signing of free agents.

Short video from NFL Network from the players perspective:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-networ...d-year-in-2010

Q&A sheet from the league:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

I've also heard that there will be restrictions on performance based contracts but haven't found anything to support that.

[Sylvanfan]

On the NFL moving the Chains show they interview a lot of players. This week they've been talking to a lot of the 4th or 5th year guys who due to the uncapped year are now restricted free agents instead of Unrestricted guys. A common question is what do you know about the upcoming labour thing and they all say we'll just roll with it, I guess I'll get tagged this year.

Doesn't sound like a Union where the players are going to be able to unite and put any pressure on the owners in CBA negotiations.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

On the NFL moving the Chains show they interview a lot of players. This week they've been talking to a lot of the 4th or 5th year guys who due to the uncapped year are now restricted free agents instead of Unrestricted guys. A common question is what do you know about the upcoming labour thing and they all say we'll just roll with it, I guess I'll get tagged this year.

Doesn't sound like a Union where the players are going to be able to unite and put any pressure on the owners in CBA negotiations.

The Owners must have a sense of this. Which is why they feel the time is now to lock the players out. I can't see NFL players who have such a short career window wanting to lose a season of earnings.

[Sylvanfan]

Not a lot of talk about this lately, but Schultz makes some good points here.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/chris_Schultz/?id=334498

First, NFL owners are billionaires that want a few more hundreds of millions. The players are millionaires that want the next available million. The problem is the billionaires have more resources than the millionaires and if it gets ugly, the owners can be uglier than the players.

Not to mention a lot of these millionaire players are trying to live a more lavish lifestyle than their billionaire owner.

There should be a rookie salary cap, money for former football players who struggle and a structure that can benefit everyone all the time but someone is going to win and someone is going to lose if this strike/lock-out happens. As much as I am for the players to get the most out of the game before the game destroys them, it's not going to happen.

Pretty much sums up my feelings. As they say Football's a great game...but a nasty business.

[Bobblehead]

It is interesting that the players have been voting to de-certify the union. The idea behind it being that if the owners then lock the players out it will violate anti-trust laws.

Somehow I'm not sure the players have thought this through. If they have no union behind them then there is also no protection - ownership can come up with what any sort of crazy rules they want and there will be no players association to vet the proposals.

Year around mandatory camps; 18+ game seasons; whatever the owners want, there will be no players association to represent the players point of view. The players can do it or they can be replaced.

The NFL has it good, TV ratings are way up. But they seem destined to really tarnish their appeal.