NFL Owners opt of labor agreement
 

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/wcSto...#story=8147844

The NFL owners voted unanimously Tuesday to end their agreement with the players' union in 2011, two years before the deal was to expire.

The league, however, emphasized that it will keep negotiating with the NFL Players Association and said games will be played "without threat of interruption for at least the next three seasons."

The owners had until Nov. 8 to opt out of the agreement, a provision written into the deal when it was signed in March 2006. They decided to act early, partly because they didn't want to do so while the 2008 season had begun.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFLPA, said on Sirius NFL Radio he learned of the owners' decision by e-mail from commissioner Roger Goodell.

"My response to his e-mail was very simple: 'What a surprise,"' Upshaw said sarcastically.

Upshaw has been predicting this the last few months and last weekend referred to the owners as "greedy."

Essentially, the deadline for a new contract is March 2009, an agreement that would avoid a 2010 without a salary cap. The original contract, signed in 1993, specified that the final year of the deal be without a cap.

"As they say during the draft, we're on the clock," Upshaw said. "That's basically what it means."

The owners noted in their statement that they are paying $4.

They are paying $4? For what, a couple burritos, or to opt out?

I hate upshaw.

Seriously - you can't even get a footlong for that.

$5 dollar

$5 dollar

$5 dollar footlooooooooooong.

No surprise. Can the NFLPA afford to ever strike?

You can't even "opt out" for $4. Just opt.

Same here.

I hope they do two things (the NFL):

1) Slotted rookie contracts. No more insane dollar figures and guaranteed bonuses.

2) Reduce the share of revenue that the players get from the current 60%.

Like the 6 year 72 million dollar deal Ryan signed today?

Must be nice.

Why? Why the hell shouldn't the players get as much of the revenue as they possibly can?

Slotted rookie contracts are probably needed badly, but why would any fan care what percent of revenue players get?

Unless you think the owners are contributing massively to the value of watching of a football game... they players should get a significant chunk of the revenue. They are the product, if there was a massive player strike (and they could hold together) the football product would have absolutely no value. Of course, maybe you would be one of the people screaming that the players are ruining the game, and that they are a bunch of rich pampered brats, but realize that they are not getting paid more so that a much smaller group of much richer pampered brats (the owners) can get even more money.

Fix problems with the contract, but don't hate the players for trying to get a share of what they are worth.

I hope the NFL does:

1) Guarenteed Contracts

I'm sure the players are going to bring that one up during the new negotiations. Maybe that can be in exchange for slotted rookie contracts.

Guaranteed contracts would be awful for the sport. Most contracts right now are essentially guaranteed for 3 years anyways. One of the problems with the NBA is the guaranteed contracts....and the injury rate is probably not that high in the league compared to football.

+1

Just Say 'No' To Guaranteed Contracts.

While, it's something is impacting smaller market teams (not including a team like Green Bay) and profit margins of those teams.

While I understand guarranteed contracts wouldn't work well in football, I've never understood the uproar players receive when they hold out for more money. Usually the argument is that the player has a contract and he should honor it. Why the hell should the player honor it if the team has the right to terminate it at any time without a payout?

Part of it is that the player knows exactly how things work when they sign the contract.

Signing bonuses are the defacto guranteed deals so let's not start saying the players are somehow getting screwed here.

That's true. I'm not saying the players are getting screwed. But holding out is the only leverage a player has. I know baseball isn't exactly a shining economic model, but when is the last time you've seen a holdout in baseball?

but don't they have arbitration?

Not for the first three years (or in some cases two). Players in years 1-3 are ridiculously underpaid compared to their more veteran peers. Prince Fielder, after hitting 50 home runs last season was renewed at $650,000. He bitched, but he didn't hold out. I heard of other players in that service time range bitching, but none held out.

i wish Baseball and NBA contracts wernt guaranteed. those sports would improve greatly if players knew they couldnt get lazy once they signed a contract

I think you are severely beaten by the veterans if you hold out in years 1,2 or 3.

How is a contract a contract if there is no guarantee? Even the NFL has defacto guaranteed contracts via signing bonuses.

Exactly. The rules are the same for all players. Ryan Braun on the other hand avoided such a mess by signing a guaranteed 8 year contract.

MLB and NFL seem to be polar opposites in regards to younger players. Players with lower service time get shit on in the MLB, while draftees in the NFL get insane signing bonuses. MLB draftees outside the first round don't really get crap for signing bonuses either.

In that sense MLB has it absolutely right. Not sure you can really have it like that in the NFL due to very short average careers overall.

Right. Even though younger players get the short end of the stick in MLB, I'm not sure I can name any two sport players that pretty much had a real chance of playing in either league that chose the NFL. MLB has the opportunity for much more longer term earnings.

NFL is usually a fallback for baseball players that failed miserably (Chad Hutchinson, Drew Henson). Then they fail miserably in the NFL too.

This is the reason I'd like to see guarenteed contracts. A contract should be honored and teams being able to cut players and not have to pay anything else, if, say the player gets injured in a game, is wrong. As long as contracts are not guarenteed, I see nothing wrong with hold outs. It's basically a situation where you have to get as much money as you can because the team will throw you over when it has the chance.

And signing bonuses aren't that large for the majority of players who play in the league. Usually rookies hold out for so much in pay and signing bonuses because of the fact their contracts are not guarenteed and they need to get as much as they possibly can, just in case.

I agree in principle with all this, but as for practicality, how would guaranteed contracts work with the salary cap? I honestly don't know.

Well, they'd have to work it out, I figure. I've just always have had a bad taste in my mouth when people talk about "honoring" your contract when the team can terminate you and not pay you any more of your deal.

Guaranteed contracts are terrible, and the incenitive to play hard would completely go to crap with them. The argument that these players have to get all they can due to it being all over in one play is laughable when you consider there are people who do much riskier jobs (say the military) that don't get paid even a quarter as much as most signing bonuses that are guaranteed.

With guaranteed contracts it would take 10+ years for most bottom of the rung teams to turn around due to the baggage they would carry for the remainder of the contracts.

The NFL isn't broke, so therefore doesn't need fixing.

Most players wouldn't want guaranteed contracts because you wouldn't see as many 60-100 million dollar contracts (IE, lots of the rookies, and M.Vick) for players who are questionable talent at best. Atleast with the way things are now, they have the chance to earn 70% of that, and the owners have some security if the player is a bust.

Nobody would give 72 million guaranteed to a rookie knowing they HAD to pay 72 million even if the guy is Akili Smith.

You realize that a very, very small portion of the players get the 60-100 million contracts (they won't get most of it anyway, because it'll be renegotiated if they are good and the teams wants to keep them or they'll be cut if they don't).

This isn't for the stars, but for the middle tier and lower tier players who don't get the $10+ million deals.

The owners would have to be smarter with the stars and high draft picks. That's all. And the others, who aren't at that level get some financial security as well, for player, let's face it a very, very violent game. And its only been very recently that the NFL has taken care of its former players (and even then it does a half-assed job).

Renegotiation means more guaranteed money. As far as the lower / mid tier players, anyone with over 4 years has their season's salary guaranteed as long as they make it to the regular season. Veterans have a minimum guaranteed, and I think there are a few other situations. Point being, nobody is getting free labor, or even cheap labor when you consider the minimum is close to 300 thousand for a first year player, and 800k if you make it 8 years or longer.

I would like to see smaller raises in the regular salary cap. And a rookie salary slotting cap. But I'd also like to see them greatly expand the incentive performanced based play program. And they could funnel cash that would have gone to the cap to that program instead.

A guy like Willie Colon started 16 games at RT last year, and only made 450k. He is on his rookie deal, and was a 4th round pick. However he did get another 300k in incentive pay from the program due to his high snap count. I would suggest they at least triple the amount of money in this pool and spread more money around to the lower paid guys around the league.

Aren't NFL contracts pretty much "guaranteed" through insane signing bonuses?

Contracts should only be guaranteed if the players sell enough Girl Scout cookies each year. Oh, and they can't buy them for themselves to make the quota.

Wanted to bump this. Any movement yet?

With Upshaw dying, I doubt anything happens for a while.