The NFL 2011 Offseason/Strike/Lockout Thread

[SirFozzie]

And there's a special kind of tone-deaf. Look, I don't mind Goodell getting his side of the story out, it's to be expected,. but to do so in the WALL STREET JOURNAL... if you asked me the only thing LESS popular with the average fan than "Billionarires versus Millionaires" right now, it's Wall Street.

[Crapshoot]

The WSJ will always stand for the poor-oppressed rich white guy. And I say that as a regular reader.

[DaddyTorgo]

*yawn*

wake me when there's a new CBA

[fantom1979]

You would think that the Redskins would be able to void his contract and recoup some of the bonus money at some point here.

WASHINGTON – Washington Redskins defensive lineman Albert Haynesworth was charged Tuesday with misdemeanor sexual abuse for allegedly fondling the breast of his server in a hotel restaurant in Washington.

A grand jury returned an indictment formally charging Haynesworth over the alleged incident at a downtown Washington hotel in the early hours of Feb. 13. If convicted, the 29-year-old two-time All-Pro faces up to six months days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
According to the U.S. attorney's office, the government's evidence shows Haynesworth slid a credit card down the front of the server's dress and fondled her breast.

Haynesworth's attorney, A. Scott Bolden, called the charge disappointing and regretful and said it would be a difficult case for the government to prove. Haynesworth is innocent and several witnesses would vouch that the alleged conduct never happened, Bolden said.

"We maintain his innocence, and now the fight begins," Bolden said.

Telephone and e-mail messages left for Haynesworth's agent, Chad Speck, were not immediately returned. Redskins spokesman Tony Wyllie said the team referred all calls to Haynesworth and his agent.

Haynesworth is also currently facing charges in Virginia for allegedly punching a man during a road-rage assault. His trial is scheduled for May. At one point last summer, he was also involved in lawsuits from a bank, an exotic dancer, a man injured in an automobile accident and complaints from his ex-wife that he wasn't paying for her health insurance or their children's bills.

Haynesworth has also dealt with his share of on-the-field problems over the past year. He had a tumultuous 2010 season with the Redskins that ended when he was suspended without pay for the final four games of the season for "conduct detrimental to the club."

Haynesworth had constantly feuded with coach Mike Shanahan, skipped offseason workouts and failed to pass a conditioning test at the start of training camp. He did not start a game last season, despite being in the second year of a seven-year, $100 million contract, and is expected to be traded or released by the Redskins this offseason.

[MikeVic]

Seeing that "fine of $1,000" makes me think... why aren't fines a % of annual income? If I fondled a breast and got a $1,000 fine, it would dent me financially and all that. What's $1,000 to a $100M man? Shouldn't that fine be like $2M or something?

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Incorrect. It was $141m in total compensation. $114m in cap for 2011, for a direct reduction of $13m from two years ago despite increased revenues. They would have increased benefits $1m from $26m to $27m in the new plan, but that's still a direct reduction of $12m per team...or almost a $400m giveback to the owners before you factor in the increased revenues over the past two seasons. Furthermore, the plan didn't allow for players to share in any larger-than-"expected" revenue growth. Given that the TV contract is up in a couple of years and it's a virtually certainty that TV revenues will go up fairly significantly, the owners would have just received an increasingly large share of the overall revenues over the life of the deal. It was a shitty deal that wouldn't ever be seriously considered without the owners opening the books to justify why the players should give back almost half a billion dollars.

According to Bloomberg, even the players are saying the owners offered a $141 million dollar salary cap, not total compensation.

NFL Players Association Says Owners Didn't Justify Proposed Give-Back - Bloomberg

The $576 million dollar giveback in 2011 they are claiming is a result of their projected cap number of $159 million vs. the offered $141 million and not a "total compensation" complaint. Interested as to where you're getting your information. Not claiming what you say is false, I just hadn't read anything like what you're describing. Yes, the gripe about the potential of increased TV revenue not being factored in is legitimate, but a claim the owners were doing "pay cuts" doesn't seem to hold up AFAIK.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

According to Bloomberg, even the players are saying the owners offered a $141 million dollar salary cap, not total compensation.

NFL Players Association Says Owners Didn't Justify Proposed Give-Back - Bloomberg

The $576 million dollar giveback in 2011 they are claiming is a result of their projected cap number of $159 million vs. the offered $141 million and not a "total compensation" complaint. Interested as to where you're getting your information. Not claiming what you say is false, I just hadn't read anything like what you're describing. Yes, the gripe about the potential of increased TV revenue not being factored in is legitimate, but a claim the owners were doing "pay cuts" doesn't seem to hold up AFAIK.

It's been widely reported. For example, here's an entire article about it from John Clayton.

ESPN NFL Owners' math simply doesn't add up

Here's the player's response to Goodell's letter signed by Kevin Mawae, Charlie Batch, Drew Brees, Brian Dawkins, Domonique Foxworth, Scott Fujita, Sean Morey, Tony Richardson, Jeff Saturday and Mike Vrabel:

NFLPA's letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell: Full Version - Chicago Bears Huddle

To trim that down, here's the operative sentence you're looking for:

Your proposal called for a pegged amount for the salary cap plus benefits starting at 141M in 2011...

Bloomberg is just doing some lazy reporting - it's $141m in compensation, not cap. And that directly translates to a pay cut for the players of about $12m in cap per team, or close to half a billion dollars when you factor in the depressed revenue schedules the NFL presented.

[Honolulu_Blue]

My opinion of Roger Goodell has been dropping ever since the whole 18 game schedule thing and it continues to decline.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

My opinion of Roger Goodell has been dropping ever since the whole 18 game schedule thing and it continues to decline.

Oh, I think the guy is a stooge of epic proportions. His player punishments are wildly inconsistent, the 18 game schedule was a disaster, the rule-making authority can't even define a simple catch anymore and he's been misleading at best during the labor negotiations. His latest fiasco - an article in the WSJ to lament the potential damage to the league - shows how out of touch he really is.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's been widely reported. For example, here's an entire article about it from John Clayton.

ESPN NFL Owners' math simply doesn't add up

Here's the player's response to Goodell's letter signed by Kevin Mawae, Charlie Batch, Drew Brees, Brian Dawkins, Domonique Foxworth, Scott Fujita, Sean Morey, Tony Richardson, Jeff Saturday and Mike Vrabel:

NFLPA's letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell: Full Version - Chicago Bears Huddle

To trim that down, here's the operative sentence you're looking for:


Bloomberg is just doing some lazy reporting - it's $141m in compensation, not cap. And that directly translates to a pay cut for the players of about $12m in cap per team, or close to half a billion dollars when you factor in the depressed revenue schedules the NFL presented.

Thanks. I was doing some lazy reading on the subject as well it seems. Chalk it up to the offseason.

[Ksyrup]

Goodell comes off as way to lawyerly and that has done damage to the PR side of this for the owners. His arguments are made in legal shades of gray and nuanced lawyerly language which might hold more water in a court, but actually hurt him in the public's view. He's like guys like Neuheisel who think they have a good, over-lawyerly answer for everything, but outside the legal profession, you just damage your credability.

It's hard to stop thinking like a lawyer sometimes, even for people who aren't lawyers but apparently think they are.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

Thanks. I was doing some lazy reading on the subject as well it seems. Chalk it up to the offseason.

Nah, it's all good. The NFL owners (and a number of people in the press) didn't bother clarifying to the public the difference between "compensation" and "cap". They want that misconception to hang out there to make people think that the players were bitching about getting "only" a $15m dollar raise. That's how they can win the war of public opinion. I've found that the majority of people who seem to favor the owners do so out of factual misconceptions.

The main two areas of confusion deal with the substance of the owner's offer to the players (as we discussed above) or a lack of understanding of anti-trust laws. Most people tend to agree that if their bosses and all the major competitors in that industry got together and tried to fix their wages and customer prices that it's not good for anyone. When it's explained that way, people tend to understand it a bit more.

One thing D Smith has done a piss-poor job of is explaining to the public what this fight is really all about. He's never put it in simple, sound-bite terms that Joe Football can understand. Instead, he's made a big deal about opening the books without ever laying the groundwork as to why the players are demanding such a thing. As such, it's cost the players support and prevented the public from really coming down hard on the owners...and the public should be coming down hard on the owners, because this has been created almost entirely by them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The main two areas of confusion deal with the substance of the owner's offer to the players (as we discussed above) or a lack of understanding of anti-trust laws. Most people tend to agree that if their bosses and all the major competitors in that industry got together and tried to fix their wages and customer prices that it's not good for anyone. When it's explained that way, people tend to understand it a bit more.

I disagree with this. A key difference is that the teams need to work together to put a good product on the field. They are partners in business that need each other. Verizon does not need AT&T to stay in business, while the Patriots need the Cowboys, for example. That's where the anti-trust confusions come in.

Competitors to the NFL are the UFL and CFL, and to a certain extent MLB, NHL, NBA, even MLS and the like. The other leagues even compete for some of the same talent as the NFL, with some athletes coming out of college choosing between the NFL and MLB, for example.

I just don't buy the whole anti-trust thing here relating to the players. I buy it when we start talking about the NFL vs UFL.

[kurtism]

The master of the utterly polite takedown turned his attention to Goodell yesterday: Joe Blogs: Goodell To The Last Drop

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I disagree with this. A key difference is that the teams need to work together to put a good product on the field. They are partners in business that need each other. Verizon does not need AT&T to stay in business, while the Patriots need the Cowboys, for example. That's where the anti-trust confusions come in.

Competitors to the NFL are the UFL and CFL, and to a certain extent MLB, NHL, NBA, even MLS and the like. The other leagues even compete for some of the same talent as the NFL, with some athletes coming out of college choosing between the NFL and MLB, for example.

I just don't buy the whole anti-trust thing here relating to the players. I buy it when we start talking about the NFL vs UFL.

To be blunt, it really doesn't matter what you believe, it's the law. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 last year in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League that the NFL is 32 separate entities.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf

A nut and a bolt can only operate together, but an agreement between nut and bolt manufacturers is still subject - Justice Stevens

When it comes to labor law, you can only get around the Sherman Anti-Trust statutes when you're negotiating with a union. Once there's no union, then you have a group of 32 individual businesses that control an entire marketplace dictating wages and even who can offer employment in clear violation of Sherman.

In terms of football, there are no effective competitors to the NFL - they are a monopoly. The NFL effectively controls the entire market as the CFL doesn't even exist in this country and the UFL is not considered a viable competitor in that sense. The market is absolutely and without question inherently devoid of competition. Trying to claim that the CFL/UFL are competitors is like saying one programmer working out of his house is enough competition to not trigger anti-trust actions against Microsoft.

The NBA, NHL and MLB compete for entertainment dollars, but not for labor. That's like saying an electrician is the same as a carpenter just because they both work in the construction industry. How many football players currently play professionally in another sport? None. How many could? Very, very few. They're football players and they're in a monopoly market. This isn't in dispute whatsoever. Sherman applies as long as there's no union.

Sorry to be that blunt, but those are the simple facts. Trying to argue otherwise is simply a Flat-Earth argument...there's no legal basis for it whatsoever given the SCOTUS ruling last year.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

To be blunt, it really doesn't matter what you believe, it's the law. The SCOTUS ruled [/b]9-0[/b] last year in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League that the NFL is 32 separate entities.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf

Sure it matters what I believe. We're talking about public opinion. I've gone on record earlier with my hatred of all the lawyering going on here, I'm just stating what would make sense from my point-of-view, and why the public gets confused.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

When it comes to labor law, you can only get around the Sherman Anti-Trust statutes when you're negotiating with a union. Once there's no union, then you have a group of 32 individual businesses that control an entire marketplace dictating wages and even who can offer employment in clear violation of Sherman.

In terms of football, there are no effective competitors to the NFL - they are a monopoly. The NFL effectively controls the entire market as the CFL doesn't even exist in this country and the UFL is not considered a viable competitor in that sense. The market is absolutely and without question inherently devoid of competition. Trying to claim that the CFL/UFL are competitors is like saying one programmer working out of his house is enough competition to not trigger anti-trust actions against Microsoft.

The NBA, NHL and MLB compete for entertainment dollars, but not for labor. That's like saying an electrician is the same as a carpenter just because they both work in the construction industry. How many football players currently play professionally in another sport? None. How many could? Very, very few. They're football players and they're in a monopoly market. This isn't in dispute whatsoever. Sherman applies as long as there's no union.

I think there is more labor competition than you are saying here. You may be correct once they BECOME professional players, but before they do, at the college and even high school level, there are plenty of players who play multiple sports and have to make conscious decisions about which sport they want to get into. MLB doesn't even worry about players applying for their draft, they just draft them and hope they can convince them to stop playing their other sport. College athletes will switch sports if they don't think they can make it professionally in one, and sometimes keep feet in both to see where they may end up professionally and then decide which one to jump into. The leagues DO in fact compete for talent, dipping down even into the high school level to convince players to get onto a certain track.

Once in the sport, sure I can agree there is not as much competition. But these players walk into that career with their eyes wide open as to how things will / do work in that league.

The legal system is about to ruin the NFL...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 last year in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League that the NFL is 32 separate entities.

Serious question then, why does the NFL act like a single entity in almost all areas? Is that ALL from collective bargaining? Without a CBA, shouldn't individual teams be on their own then to sign players, set their own game schedules, set their own TV deals, etc.

And I don't quite understand the monopoly thing either - the Sirius/XM merger was allowed when there's literally zero other satellite radio, and there's a few other examples of those types of mergers. Could the NFL teams merge into one legal entity in the same way, and then just set salaries at $20k/season (if they're otherwise not illegally restraining competition - like signing exclusive deals with every TV network)?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Incorrect. It was $141m in total compensation. $114m in cap for 2011...

I'm still having a tough time siding with the players who are making on average better than $2 million per year (53 players/$114 million in cash compensation per team).

[cschex]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm still having a tough time siding with the players who are making on average better than $2 million per year (53 players/$114 million in cash compensation per team).

As opposed to the owners, who are making billions of dollars and wanting to make more (at the players' expense) with no reason that they have given us to believe the current system is not already making them obscene amounts of money. The players want better health care and that's about it. I can see how someone could not sympathize with either side, but it baffles to me how anyone could side with the owners in this situation

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Sure it matters what I believe. We're talking about public opinion. I've gone on record earlier with my hatred of all the lawyering going on here, I'm just stating what would make sense from my point-of-view, and why the public gets confused.

Yeah, but that's simply not the law. It doesn't work that way, it's not legal for it to work that way, it shouldn't work that way...and D Smith has done a horrid job of educating the public on why it doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think there is more labor competition than you are saying here. You may be correct once they BECOME professional players, but before they do, at the college and even high school level, there are plenty of players who play multiple sports and have to make conscious decisions about which sport they want to get into. MLB doesn't even worry about players applying for their draft, they just draft them and hope they can convince them to stop playing their other sport. College athletes will switch sports if they don't think they can make it professionally in one, and sometimes keep feet in both to see where they may end up professionally and then decide which one to jump into. The leagues DO in fact compete for talent, dipping down even into the high school level to convince players to get onto a certain track.

Once in the sport, sure I can agree there is not as much competition. But these players walk into that career with their eyes wide open as to how things will / do work in that league.

See, again, that's not the law. You can't have Target, Walmart, Sears, K-Mart and every other major retailer get together, determine how labor will be divvied up and then say "hey, too bad you don't like it, you knew it before you wanted to get into retailing". The banks on Wall Street can't get together and determine they're going to pay their brokers minimum wage and then say, "tough, you shouldn't have been a Finance major". That's not a free market system. Regardless of whether or not you think the NFL should be one entity, it's not. It's 32 individual companies and they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The legal system is about to ruin the NFL...

No. If it gets that far - and it won't because the players also benefit in the union/legal trust system - then it's the owners who ruined it. What I'm typing isn't any secret. They knew the risks (remember, they lost in the SCOTUS just last year!), wanted to play hardball, canceled the deal and now they're facing the south end of a northbound mule.

Originally Posted by Molson

Serious question then, why does the NFL act like a single entity in almost all areas? Is that ALL from collective bargaining? Without a CBA, shouldn't individual teams be on their own then to sign players, set their own game schedules, set their own TV deals, etc.

Because there are things that it can do as an entity - like scheduling. That doesn't create any anti-trust issues.

The owners also agree by contract when they buy teams to follow the rules of the league. That's the condition of admittance, not unlike the player's code of conduct. It's a simple contract. I suppose someone could theoretically buy the Dolphins, but if they wanted to set their own schedules, set their own TV deals, etc. they simply wouldn't be part of the league. What would the Dolphins be worth without a league? In theory, they could all act independently, but how much would any team be worth? These guys know they're worth more together, so they created a mutual contract that they sign to become owners that dictate how/when things are shared. That's legal so long as it doesn't adversely impact customers or employees. But each team reserves the right to set their own ticket prices, for example. If they didn't and set them as an entity, then the fans would have a potential anti-trust case against the NFL.

There have been some disputes on the fringes of this. Jerry Jones, in particular, bent league rules regarding merchandising a few years ago because the Cowboys stood to benefit more than other teams.

Originally Posted by Molson

And I don't quite understand the monopoly thing either - the Sirius/XM merger was allowed when there's literally zero other satellite radio, and there's a few other examples of those types of mergers. Could the NFL teams merge into one legal entity in the same way, and then just set salaries at $20k/season (if they're otherwise not illegally restraining competition - like signing exclusive deals with every TV network)?

The Sirius/XM merger was allowed because there is plenty of radio competition. Ultimately, it was decided that since people listened to Sirius on the radio, the radio market would determine whether or not it was to be considered a monopoly and NOT just satellite radio. Also, internet streaming was also considered a competitor to Sirius/XM. But it was held up for over a year trying to pass the tests to get approval to do so - it was a fairly close case.

In theory, the NFL could become a single entity. But there are currently 32 bosses. Who would be The Boss in a merged company? Can you imagine Daniel Snyder taking orders from Jerry Jones? And even if they did join together, they would still be a market monopoly and subject to Sherman because the market is considered to be professional football, not professional sports.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm still having a tough time siding with the players who are making on average better than $2 million per year (53 players/$114 million in cash compensation per team).

Fair point, but if your boss came to you in the middle of the most successful year in company history, canceled your contract and asked you to take a 10% pay cut, you wouldn't be happy about it. If you were unionized, you'd demand your union stick up for you. In this case, the players have one more major arrow in the quiver - the fact that the NFL is a monopoly and subject to additional rules regarding labor laws.

Of course, this whole dispute has been billed as an argument of billionaires vs. millionaires. That's not inaccurate. So while you may not side with the millionaires, you certainly side with the billionaires if you use the same logic. On one side, you have a bunch of guys who won the genetic lottery. On the other side, you have a bunch of guys who won the inheritance lottery.

So don't side with either side. That's more than reasonable. But the owners clearly instigated this entire fight. They canceled the deal. They locked the players out. They want half a billion dollars back in their pockets without justifying why. That's why I side with the players. If the players had opted out of the contract and demanded a 20% raise, I'd be siding with the owners.

Effectively, our interest in the sport sets their salaries (and the owner's profits). If we didn't watch, neither of them would get paid. But we do, and the players are compensated accordingly to what the market generates in revenue just like any other market.


FYI, good questions all.

[SirFozzie]

The request to stay the lockout lifting denied.

No surprise, really...

Judge: I find this lockout to be illegal because of the immediate harm it offers the players

NFL: Judge, we'd like you to freeze your action so we can continue to harm the players while we appeal the ruling that we're harming the players.

Judge: ......

[Crapshoot]

The NFL is getting beaten like a red-headed stepchild, and I can't help but be glad. Aren't they in contempt of court by not lifting the lockout immediately?

[SirFozzie]

Probably the players would have to bring that up, and the NFL will have the appeal to the 8th Court tommorrow before sunup, it's.. well, my gut feeling is they have a 1/4 chance of winning the appeal, but my head says that it's 50/50. The judges have a high bar to reverse on appeal, and there's a LOT in there against the owners, but the judges are inherently conservative in not wanting to make big sweeping changes (not saying conservative in a D/R type of way, it's just they don't want to be out on a limb without making sure someone's not sawing it off behind them)

[JPhillips]

I wish Mike Brown was savvy enough to trade Palmer and Ocho tomorrow morning.

[SirFozzie]

Interesting, from Adam Schefter:

Judge's 20 page order takes her 89 page order from Mon and hits the major points even harder. Makes NFL's attempt to get overturned harder.

[Galaxy]

I've always been curious. Can the NFL get be sued by cities/counties if they don't play this year if the stadiums are taxpayer-funded? (Considering the NFL is why they built the stadiums.)

[SirFozzie]

Probably not, probably the deal with the towns/states state that IF games are played, they get played at the stadium.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wish Mike Brown was savvy enough to trade Palmer and Ocho tomorrow morning.

For what? A pizza and a six pack?

To be serious...Palmer has some value - perhaps a 2nd round pick (at best) considering he's going on 5 years removed from his last really good season. More likely a 3rd with a chance for it to become a 2nd if he starts 12 games or so.

Ocho is worth nothing. I doubt the Bengals could even get a 7th round pick for him. He's too old, too much of a headache and just isn't that productive anymore.

[JPhillips]

I think Palmer could get a second and Ocho could get a fifth. It won't matter though because Brown would rather force them to stay under contract than improve the team.

[gstelmack]

All right, so explain this bit to me:

If the true fundamental issue here is the size of the pie the players get, why all this anti-trust mumbo-jumbo? If treating the NFL as a monopoly is actually in the players' best interests (with a draft, salary cap, etc that makes the NFL so competitive and such a lucrative business), why are the players fighting to make it declared a monopoly and get all that thrown out?

See, if it's just legal maneuvering to get the players a bigger piece of the pie so they'll stop crying "anti-trust!", I'm sick of the whole darn thing. Put the legalities / law aside (I know, I'm asking a lot) and you'll see why the public is so confused. Every argument I'm hearing boils down to my first question above. The legal arguments being bandied about are all about the players going out and selling themselves to the highest bidder with zero restrictions on that, and I think that will ruin the NFL.

And if after all of this legal maneuvering they reach some agreement that continues to treat the NFL like a monopoly, shouldn't the government step in anyway and "break them up" or whatever? Otherwise what's the point of all the anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws out there?

I understand there may be laws, etc, but let me bring this back to an NFL analogy that's been complained about: all this legal maneuvering is EXACTLY like the NFL catch rule. To everyone watching the play it's a catch, but according to the NFL rules (the "law") it's not.

That's what all of this legal maneuvering reminds me of. Everyone knows the framework of the existing NFL CBA is a really good deal, including the players, it all boils down to numbers and how much the player's get. Throwing anti-trust into the mix is arguing that this framework is illegal, but the players actually want it in the end. If they win their lawsuit and follow what they've been arguing, they will ruin the NFL. The only way they keep the NFL rolling in the money is to throw out most of what they are arguing legally. All the player arguments come off as hypocritical.

I hate lawyers. Well, better to say big business lawyers and lawyers that write laws and ambulance chasers. I like my real estate / estate lawyer, as an exception that proves the rule.

If the players actually had integrity in all this, I would have kept negotiating and struck like most unions and see who blinks first. You think the NFL wants replacement players? Stay as a union, don't decertify, and stick to what numbers you actually want. Decertifying when you are still a union in all but name, filing an anti-trust lawsuit when you really don't want the cap lifted and teams paying whatever they want to whoever they want or even a competing league, it all just ticks me off.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

All right, so explain this bit to me:

If the true fundamental issue here is the size of the pie the players get, why all this anti-trust mumbo-jumbo? If treating the NFL as a monopoly is actually in the players' best interests (with a draft, salary cap, etc that makes the NFL so competitive and such a lucrative business), why are the players fighting to make it declared a monopoly and get all that thrown out?

See, if it's just legal maneuvering to get the players a bigger piece of the pie so they'll stop crying "anti-trust!", I'm sick of the whole darn thing. Put the legalities / law aside (I know, I'm asking a lot) and you'll see why the public is so confused. Every argument I'm hearing boils down to my first question above. The legal arguments being bandied about are all about the players going out and selling themselves to the highest bidder with zero restrictions on that, and I think that will ruin the NFL.

This is all about leverage. The anti-trust suit gives the players the leverage they lack if they just accepted the owner's lockout and then continued negotiating. More on that below.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And if after all of this legal maneuvering they reach some agreement that continues to treat the NFL like a monopoly, shouldn't the government step in anyway and "break them up" or whatever? Otherwise what's the point of all the anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws out there?

Because a monopoly per-se isn't illegal. You probably get your water and power from monopolies. Your trash pickup is likely from a monopoly. It's the abuse of power that gets a monopoly into trouble. That abuse includes collaborating to limit free-market salaries.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I understand there may be laws, etc, but let me bring this back to an NFL analogy that's been complained about: all this legal maneuvering is EXACTLY like the NFL catch rule. To everyone watching the play it's a catch, but according to the NFL rules (the "law") it's not.

I'm assuming you're referring to whether the NFL one or 32 entities. These anti-trust laws existed long before the NFL ever did. The NFL has had a number of court cases go against them on this and it was finally cemented in the SCOTUS last year that they're 32 entities and have to be very careful around monopolistic issues. To use your analogy, it's very simple. It ain't a catch. It's not even close. The WR had only 1 foot in bounds and didn't have control of the ball.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That's what all of this legal maneuvering reminds me of. Everyone knows the framework of the existing NFL CBA is a really good deal, including the players, it all boils down to numbers and how much the player's get. Throwing anti-trust into the mix is arguing that this framework is illegal, but the players actually want it in the end. If they win their lawsuit and follow what they've been arguing, they will ruin the NFL. The only way they keep the NFL rolling in the money is to throw out most of what they are arguing legally. All the player arguments come off as hypocritical.

I hate lawyers. Well, better to say big business lawyers and lawyers that write laws and ambulance chasers. I like my real estate / estate lawyer, as an exception that proves the rule.

If the players actually had integrity in all this, I would have kept negotiating and struck like most unions and see who blinks first. You think the NFL wants replacement players? Stay as a union, don't decertify, and stick to what numbers you actually want. Decertifying when you are still a union in all but name, filing an anti-trust lawsuit when you really don't want the cap lifted and teams paying whatever they want to whoever they want or even a competing league, it all just ticks me off.

Ah, so now we're down to the heart of the matter.

Again, it's all about leverage. The owners thought they had it when they opted out of a contract they signed and decided to lock the players out. That's why they negotiated years ago (in bad faith and now it'll cost them) to get paid the TV rights in a lockout year. That's why they didn't even offer the players a deal until the 11th hour. That's why they didn't even have someone in the negotiations who could make a deal until less than two weeks before the lockout deadline. That's why they didn't even want to bother to open the books to justify their demands for a $500,000,000 giveback. They thought they held most of the cards.

So don't talk to me about integrity unless you're first going to point that finger at the owners. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a bigger piece of the pie (though there is in trying to use monopoly power to get it). The owners want that bigger piece and have the deep pockets to wait the players out. When players, some of whom don't make big bucks, started missing paychecks (essentially a starvation strategy by the owners), they owners figured the players would buckle. After all, it worked for the NHL a few years ago and the NHL now has a very favorable labor deal.

So you think the players should have stayed at the table, even after being repeatedly insulted by the owners during the negotiations and negotiate from a disadvantageous position? You think they should miss paychecks and possibly seasons (remember, the average career in the NFL is THREE years) or just roll over and accept what the owners offered? That's not integrity, it's stupidity.

You don't fight a war on your opponents' terms. You use all the arrows in your quiver to win the battle. To use another analogy, the best card in the NFLPA's deck is that the NFL is a monopoly and subject to certain laws as such. So the NFLPA played that card only after the owners fucked around in the negotiations. Essentially, the players said, "if you want to play hardball, we'll play hardball". By not just passively accepting a lockout, they forced the issue. This allowed them to get in front of the issue before players start missing a lot paychecks and are financially forced to take a bad deal. That's a misuse of monopoly power by the NFL. But it's only a misuse if the players stand there as a union. Why should the players allow the NFL to use its monopolistic power to force them into a bad deal? That's the crux of the matter.

It appears to have been a very smart strategy. Now the players have the leverage and unless the 8th circuit court stays the injunction, the NFL is in serious, serious shit. Check out this article on CNNSI, where Michael McCann (a sports law professor) is recommending the NFL postpone tonight's draft.

Judge's ruling means NFL must get back to work -- sans restrictions - Michael McCann - SI.com

As I said in an earlier post, it's not like the NFL owners didn't know this was a risk. But they elected to push the issue and now they're getting pushed back. I have zero problem with the players using the tools at their disposal to fight for bargaining power when they were pushed up against the wall by the owners. If the 8th circuit doesn't grant an emergency appeal and stay of injunction, the owners will be forced back to the negotiating table. They'll probably take something close to the player's offer or they will open up the books to justify the need for bigger giveback. And we'll have football again. Remember, both sides are filled with smart people and they're not likely to kill the Golden Goose. There's too much money at stake. It's just that one side thought they had a good hand of cards and decided to bluff...only to find out that the other side may be holding 4 aces.

[gstelmack]

I get and understand it's all legal maneuvering. I hate it, that's all. Yes, I think the players should have simply struck if they were that pissed off at the owners. Walk away, work elsewhere, start a business, whatever, the NFL owners don't survive either in that scenario. The players already got the TV contract bit overturned, and I'm fine with that, that was a contract dispute. But arguing anti-trust when you don't really want it granted is just absurd to me.

Yes, maybe it's just my view of the world. I've been mad at employers before and quit and found a new job. I've taken much less money (the equivalent of going to the UFL or CFL) to work a job I'm happy at. I've watched my parents and my wife's parents switch careers when needed.

I'm not saying the owners are all that great, but I hate the "they owe me a living!" mentality unions seem to have. The owners need the players as much as the players need the owners, and if all the players are willing to walk away and have there be no NFL, the owners would be hurting, too. And no, I won't have sympathy for players who failed to get an education and backed themselves into football as the only way for them to make a living. Tough.

But now we're getting into the union political debates we've had elsewhere. I'll just leave it off by saying I really freaking hate legal manuevering like this, it's absurd, makes no sense, and just continues to give lawyers a bad name. The fact that it's their best "strategy" just shows how absurd our civil litigation system has become.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I get and understand it's all legal maneuvering. I hate it, that's all. Yes, I think the players should have simply struck if they were that pissed off at the owners. Walk away, work elsewhere, start a business, whatever, the NFL owners don't survive either in that scenario. The players already got the TV contract bit overturned, and I'm fine with that, that was a contract dispute. But arguing anti-trust when you don't really want it granted is just absurd to me.

But it wasn't the players who opted out of the deal. I think that's the part you continually overlook. They didn't want to strike. They were fine with the current deal. They even offered a giveback in the neighborhood of $60m to the owners. They said they'd give even more, so long as the owners to justify it by opening the books. This isn't a fight they picked. There is no strike.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yes, maybe it's just my view of the world. I've been mad at employers before and quit and found a new job. I've taken much less money (the equivalent of going to the UFL or CFL) to work a job I'm happy at. I've watched my parents and my wife's parents switch careers when needed.

Your examples just aren't close to equivalent. No, it's not the equivalent of going to the UFL unless you took a pay cut of 9/10ths. No, it's not the equivalent of going from one employer to another unless those two employers and the rest of that entire employment market conspired to limit your salary. I've switched careers too, but not because a monopolistic industry decided to dictate my salary terms.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm not saying the owners are all that great, but I hate the "they owe me a living!" mentality unions seem to have. The owners need the players as much as the players need the owners, and if all the players are willing to walk away and have there be no NFL, the owners would be hurting, too. And no, I won't have sympathy for players who failed to get an education and backed themselves into football as the only way for them to make a living. Tough.

But now we're getting into the union political debates we've had elsewhere. I'll just leave it off by saying I really freaking hate legal manuevering like this, it's absurd, makes no sense, and just continues to give lawyers a bad name. The fact that it's their best "strategy" just shows how absurd our civil litigation system has become.

Ah, so it's that you have some hatred of unions and that's what is coloring your perspective. I'm not all pro-union, but I suggest you really need to undertake a better analysis of this situation. The NFL is allowed to operate a monopoly by law so long as they don't abuse the privileges that come with operating a monopoly. They tried to abuse that privilege to dictate a favorable labor deal. I don't see why you have a problem with players turning to the court system for relief from that abuse. Isn't this precisely what the civil litigation system is for?

If you're a fan of the free-market and anti-union, then you should love this strategy. There is no union. The players are now all independent contractors. The injunction (and the wording of that ruling) indicate that the NFL should be forced to run their enterprise as a free-market rather than as a monopoly. You should be ideologically overjoyed at these developments.

What should be "absurd" to you is that the NFL and their business model is far better off negotiating with a union than in an open, free market system.

That should give you some food for thought.

[Logan]

Why were the owners given the ability to opt out of the last CBA after two years?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But it wasn't the players who opted out of the deal. I think that's the part you continually overlook. They didn't want to strike. They were fine with the current deal. They even offered a giveback in the neighborhood of $60m to the owners. They said they'd give even more, so long as the owners to justify it by opening the books. This isn't a fight they picked.

That's often spun as some kind of moral point, but the didn't the owners have the right to opt-out when they did? Wasn't that part of the collectively negotiated deal? Presumably, the players got something in the bargaining table in exchange for that opt-out right. But now the owners are evil for excercising it.

Both sides have the right to get what they can, not just the players. I don't see why that is viewed as the players' exclusive moral right - that they have a special entitlement to at least continue the status quo, but also really to improve their position with every deal. (If you look back at the articles at the time of the opt-out, this is precisely the players' stance - they got a better position every time there's been negotiations, and they bragged that that would be the case this time too) They have a right to try to get that better position every time but its not some moral entitlement where one side or the other is "wrong" if they don't just hand it over.

Here's a recent quote from Trent Dilfer:

“I have talked to people on both sides,” Dilfer told ESPN 710 in Seattle. “I have always said from the get-go there had to be a lockout. We won the last Collective Bargaining Agreement by so much. I remember thinking when we actually signed the extension, ‘What are the owners doing? I mean we are killing them on this.’ I was playing at the time and I reaped all the benefits of it. I knew there had to be a lockout this time around. I knew there’d be a lot of drama surrounding it; a lot of conjecture; a lot of lawyering going on.”

And now, the moral spin is that the players are entitled, forever, to the same terms, the same deal. That's just silly, but effective, PR. I think that's the thing that makes me and probably others annoyed with the process. These are labor/business negotiations, this is not good v. evil, or slavery, or even the united mine workers v. ownership in the 1890s.

Trent Dilfer echoes view that 2006 CBA was a great one for players | ProFootballTalk

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Logan

Why were the owners given the ability to opt out of the last CBA after two years?

Both sides were given the ability to opt out due to the extension of the CBA. The CBA was a rollover from a deal done back in 1993 and extended many times. The 2006 extension pretty much had to be done since Tagliabue was retiring and that would not be a good time to get into a full-scale labor war. The owners were grumbling a bit then about money, but they weren't prepared as they wanted to be. So everyone decided to extend it for another half-dozen years with the opt-out clause, knowing that there was probably a showdown coming sooner rather than later.

[Logan]

I knew the answer, and molson already covered it. The players killed the owners in the last deal and the owners made sure they had the ability to opt out to get a real negotiation done. The players KNEW that the owners would opt out last year...it made no sense for them not to. So why is that talking point A?

[SirFozzie]

Also, let's not forget the League was required to maximize TV revenue with the players per the CBA, but deliberately took less to make sure they would get paid even if there was a lockout. That's a BILLION dollars that the NFL left off the table, and it looks like they may have to pay $600 or so million to the players as a result.

I agree with Gregg Easterbrook, the owners were smarting after thinking they didn't get a "win" in 2006, (cuz god knows, record revenues, ratings, etcetera isn't a win if you can't break the players), they hired the guy who broke the NHL Union, and took every step they could (a lot of which broke the then-current CBA) to force this lockout, and now are being forced to pay the piper.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Logan

I knew the answer, and molson already covered it. The players killed the owners in the last deal and the owners made sure they had the ability to opt out to get a real negotiation done. The players KNEW that the owners would opt out last year...it made no sense for them not to. So why is that talking point A?

Because the league A) broke the rules to do so, and B)Is trying to spin this as a "work stoppage" (ie, blame the players!) not a lockout.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Logan

I knew the answer, and molson already covered it. The players killed the owners in the last deal and the owners made sure they had the ability to opt out to get a real negotiation done. The players KNEW that the owners would opt out last year...it made no sense for them not to. So why is that talking point A?

Because it's a better talking point than to explain that originally the owners planned on sitting on their free TV money and waiting for the players to go broke and cave?

The reversal from that scenario thus far is kind of funny.

[molson]

Why are both sides so obsessed with PR anyway? Do we get to vote on how this turns out? Even if the players convince everyone that they're modern day heroes in an epic struggle - we still have to buy tickets and watch them on TV through the owners.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Because the league A) broke the rules to do so, and B)Is trying to spin this as a "work stoppage" (ie, blame the players!) not a lockout.

Huh?

[SirFozzie]

Oh ho.. this is an interesting bit. If true, it may put the kibosh on the NLRB argument by the NFL:

13. When the Reggie White settlement discussions commenced,
with the NFLPA acting as an advisor to class counsel in those negotiations, I and the late Gene Upshaw, the now-deceased former Executive Director of the NFLPA, were strongly opposed to reforming the NFLPA as a labor organization because the NFLPA’s experience in collective bargaining had been much less successful than the route of acting only as a trade ssociation and advisor, and pursuing antitrust litigation against the NFL clubs. Thus, when the NFL representatives insisted that resumption of a collective bargaining relationship between the NFL and the NFLPA be a condition of settlement, the NFLPA counter-insisted that the NFLPA would be permitted to cease acting as a collective bargaining representative at the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement and the NFL would not be permitted to object to that change or argue that it was a sham. That deal was struck as part of the settlement negotiations and, in fact, it is
my belief that without the restriction of the NFL’s purported right to object to the possible later dissolution of the NFLPA, there would have been no settlement in the Reggie White case.


http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaRe...n+exhibits.pdf

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by molson

Why are both sides so obsessed with PR anyway? Do we get to vote on how this turns out? Even if the players convince everyone that they're modern day heroes in an epic struggle - we still have to buy tickets and watch them on TV through the owners.

It's all leverage based. the anti-trust thing is important, but it's because whoever has the upper hand in PR and the suit will have the leverage in negotiations.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

Why are both sides so obsessed with PR anyway? Do we get to vote on how this turns out? Even if the players convince everyone that they're modern day heroes in an epic struggle - we still have to buy tickets and watch them on TV through the owners.

That is one thing I can't stand. I can't stand it whenever either side opens their mouths to say how they are concerned about "the fans" or about how whatever victory they won is great for "the fans".

We are not that stupid. None of this shit is about "the fans." You don't really care that much about the fans. If the fans were anywhere near the top of the list in terms of priorities, this shit would have been resolved a long time ago.

I understand that this is big business, peoples' livelihoods and there is a ton of money at stake. That's fine. Just don't try and pretend it has anything to do with your concern for us.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Molson

That's often spun as some kind of moral point, but the didn't the owners have the right to opt-out when they did? Wasn't that part of the collectively negotiated deal? Presumably, the players got something in the bargaining table in exchange for that opt-out right. But now the owners are evil for excercising it.

You're reading far, far, far too much into that. The owners had the right to opt out of the deal (as did the players). But it IS the owners who opted out and picked this fight. That's not in dispute here. I'm not blaming the owners for opting out. Frankly, blame isn't very constructive here.

If I'm going to throw any blame around, I'm blaming the owners for putting the NFL way of doing business in jeopardy not because they were greedy, but because they were stupid. Not for opting out of the CBA, but for everything after that.

Originally Posted by Molson

Both sides have the right to get what they can, not just the players. I don't see why that is viewed as the players' exclusive moral right - that they have a special entitlement to at least continue the status quo, but also really to improve their position with every deal. (If you look back at the articles at the time of the opt-out, this is precisely the players' stance - they got a better position every time there's been negotiations, and they bragged that that would be the case this time too) They have a right to try to get that better position every time but its not some moral entitlement where one side or the other is "wrong" if they don't just hand it over.

Again, you're couching things in moral relativistic terms that I haven't mentioned. It's logical to be angry at both sides for this situation. The players' selection of D Smith to lead the NFLPA certainly signaled a willingness for them to be less-than-conciliatory in negotiations. Their final demand for 10 years of financial statements from all 32 teams was an absurdity since they had previously only asked for three years. As such, I think you can be upset at both sides. I think it's also logical to be upset at mostly the owners since they picked the fight. But it's entirely illogical to place even the majority of the blame at the feet of the players.

Originally Posted by Molson

Here's a recent quote from Trent Dilfer:

“I have talked to people on both sides,” Dilfer told ESPN 710 in Seattle. “I have always said from the get-go there had to be a lockout. We won the last Collective Bargaining Agreement by so much. I remember thinking when we actually signed the extension, ‘What are the owners doing? I mean we are killing them on this.’ I was playing at the time and I reaped all the benefits of it. I knew there had to be a lockout this time around. I knew there’d be a lot of drama surrounding it; a lot of conjecture; a lot of lawyering going on.”

And now, the moral spin is that the players are entitled, forever, to the same terms, the same deal. That's just silly, but effective, PR.

Who are you speaking to? I haven't seen anyone make that moral argument. Even the players themselves indicated a willingness to give back from the last extension and even made an offer that gives money back from the last capped year. So what you're projecting isn't anything close to reality.

Your entire post responding to mine is about moralistic terms. This isn't a moral issue.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

This isn't a moral issue.

Agreed - if I read your tone incorrectly I apologize, but from this thread, I at least think I'm picking up a general "greedy owners trying to screw those poor, sad players" vibe. I could be misreading that.

But on the other hand - as far as who "picked a fight" - aren't we talking about moral/right/wrong there? What's the legal signficance of the owners doing something they had every right to do? That action is clearly being spun against them as some type of bad behavior. As is "asking for millions back" - as if they're stealing it - the clear implication there is that the players have a right to continue getting whatever they're getting forever. There is some kind of right/wrong/moral component being put out there - whether it belongs to anyone specifically in this thread, I can't know for sure.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Logan

Huh?

As part of the Collective Bargaining agreement, the NFL was REQUIRED, legally (as part of the contract), to do everything they could to maximize revenues (which were being split to the players).

A couple years ago, the NFL went to the networks as part of the negotiations of TV rights and said "We want you to pay us even if there is no football in 2011-12. We'll pay you back once football gets going again".

Of course, this is a major concession from the Networks (no one wants to be paying money for no football), and it's estimated that the networks paid about $1 Billion less then they would have, if this "lockout insurance" provision was not in the contract. (and something like 50-60% of that would have gone to the players)

Judge Doty agreed that the league had not done everything it was legally obligated to do as part of the collective bargaining agreement and set a hearing for May 12 for the damages the league will have to pay.

‘Lockout Insurance’ ruling could lead to antitrust issues for owners - Shutdown Corner - NFL*Blog - Yahoo! Sports

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

As part of the Collective Bargaining agreement, the NFL was REQUIRED, legally (as part of the contract), to do everything they could to maximize revenues (which were being split to the players).

A couple years ago, the NFL went to the networks as part of the negotiations of TV rights and said "We want you to pay us even if there is no football in 2011-12. We'll pay you back once football gets going again".

Of course, this is a major concession from the Networks (no one wants to be paying money for no football), and it's estimated that the networks paid about $1 Billion less then they would have, if this "lockout insurance" provision was not in the contract. (and something like 50-60% of that would have gone to the players)

Judge Doty agreed that the league had not done everything it was legally obligated to do as part of the collective bargaining agreement and set a hearing for May 12 for the damages the league will have to pay.

‘Lockout Insurance’ ruling could lead to antitrust issues for owners - Shutdown Corner - NFL*Blog - Yahoo! Sports

That's what I thought you meant, but there was no "breaking the rules" in opting out, only in some of the actions surrounding that opt-out.

[SirFozzie]

Correct. They have the right to opt-out, but they took actions to enhance the opt-out/lockout that broke the rules.