Official CBA Thread

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Could be a good test of the players willingness to keep talking coming up, but yesterday while the NFL said they want to keep talking, De Smith said St. Louis 6/3 here we come referring to the hearing on the appeal.

Court ordered mediation ends today, without an extension or another planned session there might be no more talking until late June/early July.

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

And if the NFL is able to contribute to stadium development more then that burden is lessened on taxpayers.

If you think PSLs and Luxury boxes account for the $1.3b difference in the stadium costs in just 9 years between Gillette and The New Meadowlands you're fooling yourselves just to try and say you're right.

The owners are assuming 100% of the risk of running these businesses, and the players own words confirmed this was a very player friendly CBA. The ability to opt out of it was collectively bargained by both sides and if the players didn't like the way things are going they'd have done the same thing.

When's the last time you asked to see your bosses entire payroll when asking for a raise?

I'm not saying the owners have done no wrong here, but what have the players done right?

I mean really, if all you've got is 'open the books' and 'billion off the top' I'm not sure why you're even reading this thread, clearly you haven't paid attention in months because if that's the best you've got you haven't been paying attention. The owners have offered some financial information and the players have ignored it without even considering looking at it. That's called not willing to find compromise, and why the players forced a lockout. At least look at their gesture before dismissing it. Don't you think 'a billion off the top' is a drum the NFLPA would be beating over and over if it were true? They were said to be much closer than a billion apart even before the lockout.

These are all reasons the players position frustrate me, they continue to use rhetoric rather than facts (like De Smith saying the NFL has been found to be breaking the law twice... when they haven't even once, and this guy is a lawyer?). Meanwhile the NFL message has remained steady and consistent outside of idiots like Jerry Richardson opening his mouth.

On the bright side, at least this isn't as bad as the lockout the NBA might go through in a couple of months.

Even in their comments today after the players were punched in the face by this ruling, and had to face harsh language casting doubt on their entire case by the very people who would rule on an appeal of it should it come to that. De Smith pointed to 6/3 repeatedly for the hearing for the appeal of the injunction by the NFL and said the players have been preparing for this for two years. The NFL said this litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiation tables where this should be settled, not the courts and that they need to come together on their own to resolve this - as they've been saying since February or March that they need to be talking, not litigating.

De Smith has gotten bad enough that PFT has pointed it out a couple of times, and they've largely come across been pro-players in this. Another gem from today is "It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game, Congratulations."

Of course they then point out the NFL hasn't sued anyone. Again, this guy is a lawyer, representing the players? And we're surprised that a deal hasn't gotten done?

I already said the players started playing hard ball. Both sides are holding their ground. But to put this on the players when the owners instigated this whole thing is naive.

Fact: The owners opt out of the previous CBA.
Fact: The owners are locking the players out this is not a strike.
Fact: The owners are asking the players to take a pay cut without full disclosure.
Fact: The owners work out a deal with T.V. networks for 4 billions in case of lock out.

At this point neither side are angels. Hopefully both sides don't kill the golden goose trying to negotiate more eggs.

I just don't see looking at the facts how the players are being blamed. There isn't one person out there that is as essential to their jobs as players are to the NFL that would take a paycut on the without full financial disclosure none. This business is so lucrative the league was able to strong arm 4 billion dollars from the networks just in case nothing happened.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

I already said the players started playing hard ball. Both sides are holding their ground. But to put this on the players when the owners instigated this whole thing is naive.

Fact: The owners opt out of the previous CBA.
Fact: The owners are locking the players out this is not a strike.
Fact: The owners are asking the players to take a pay cut without full disclosure.
Fact: The owners work out a deal with T.V. networks for 4 billions in case of lock out.

At this point neither side are angels. Hopefully both sides don't kill the golden goose trying to negotiate more eggs.

I just don't see looking at the facts how the players are being blamed. There isn't one person out there that is as essential to their jobs as players are to the NFL that would take a paycut on the without full financial disclosure none. This business is so lucrative the league was able to strong arm 4 billion dollars from the networks just in case nothing happened.

Fact: The league could have imposed a lockout immediately rather than extend the CBA a couple of times to allow for more negotiation
Fact: The league had to defensively lock out the decertified union to prevent the violation of antitrust labor laws.
Fact: The 4 billion the league is 'strong arming' from the networks is a loan they will have to pay back.

I can see how cherry picking the facts the owners are being blamed...

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Fact: The league could have imposed a lockout immediately rather than extend the CBA a couple of times to allow for more negotiation
Fact: The league had to defensively lock out the decertified union to prevent the violation of antitrust labor laws.
Fact: The 4 billion the league is 'strong arming' from the networks is a loan they will have to pay back.

I can see how cherry picking the facts the owners are being blamed...

Once again how can you give them credit when they instigated the whole thing to begin with their own greed. Pro sports competely revolves around the players they are the product no elite players no product. This comes down to money the owners are unsatisfied with their cut and are trying to take a stand at the expense of the fans.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Once again how can you give them credit when they instigated the whole thing to begin with their own greed. Pro sports competely revolves around the players they are the product no elite players no product. This comes down to money the owners are unsatisfied with their cut and are trying to take a stand at the expense of the fans.

The players are the ones litigating and taking a stand, actually. The owners are trying to keep the lockout going to prevent them from having to violate antitrust rules (which the players are suing them for doing, that's what the Brady lawsuit is, specifically). This has the added benefit of financial pressure on the class to make a deal.

[da ThRONe]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The players are the ones litigating and taking a stand, actually. The owners are trying to keep the lockout going to prevent them from having to violate antitrust rules (which the players are suing them for doing, that's what the Brady lawsuit is, specifically). This has the added benefit of financial pressure on the class to make a deal.

One again it was the owners that started all of this with unreasonable demands. Which makes them the most responsible.

[wco81]

Re: Official CBA Thread

One again it was the owners that started all of this with unreasonable demands. Which makes them the most responsible.

Agreed.

Meanwhile, even if they start the season on schedule, the quality of the play will be inferior, with mini camps and OTAs missed, a lot of teams unable to prepare new coaching staffs and new players, uncertainties about key free agents and players who are going to be traded, key draftees not being able to get work in.

At best, they will have shortened training camps/preseasons and it'll probably take longer to ramp up the quality of the play and more injuries will be seen.

[N51_rob]

Re: Official CBA Thread

And if the NFL is able to contribute to stadium development more then that burden is lessened on taxpayers.

If you think PSLs and Luxury boxes account for the $1.3b difference in the stadium costs in just 9 years between Gillette and The New Meadowlands you're fooling yourselves just to try and say you're right.

The owners are assuming 100% of the risk of running these businesses, and the players own words confirmed this was a very player friendly CBA. The ability to opt out of it was collectively bargained by both sides and if the players didn't like the way things are going they'd have done the same thing.

Very few owners are footing the bill for stadiums on their own. Look at the Vikings, Zigi Wolf is looking for public money to fund his stadium and has even mentioned having to move the team if he doesn't get a stadium.

Players assume 100% of the physical risk (for which they are handsomely compensated I know.) the average age in which former NFL players die is 54. I'm too lazy but I can assure you the average age of an NFL owner is way past that.

When's the last time you asked to see your bosses entire payroll when asking for a raise?

I'm not saying the owners have done no wrong here, but what have the players done right?

When was the last time a business that made an estimated 9 BILLION dollars in revenue wanted to ask its employes to inexplicably take a pay cut, while opting out of a CBA they had themselves negotiated?

What have the players done right? From the beginning they have said "we want to play football." "We don't want to change the CBA." Yes that means that they got a good deal, but if there were two years left on the old CBA and they owners needed so badly to change it because they were losing so much money, again coming off a year with 9 BILLION in revenue why not open the books.

If your company posted record revenue gains the last FY and asked you to take a pay cut you wouldn't be suspicious? You seem smart enough to me that you would wonder.

You asked what have the players done right? I ask you what have the owners done right?

I mean really, if all you've got is 'open the books' and 'billion off the top' I'm not sure why you're even reading this thread, clearly you haven't paid attention in months because if that's the best you've got you haven't been paying attention. The owners have offered some financial information and the players have ignored it without even considering looking at it. That's called not willing to find compromise, and why the players forced a lockout. At least look at their gesture before dismissing it. Don't you think 'a billion off the top' is a drum the NFLPA would be beating over and over if it were true? They were said to be much closer than a billion apart even before the lockout.

Ive moved past the Billion off the top so I will move one.

These are all reasons the players position frustrate me, they continue to use rhetoric rather than facts (like De Smith saying the NFL has been found to be breaking the law twice... when they haven't even once, and this guy is a lawyer?). Meanwhile the NFL message has remained steady and consistent outside of idiots like Jerry Richardson opening his mouth.

Rhetoric is all a part of the game. You keep bringing up D.Smith. To a point I agree with you. But here is the thing. The owners keep letting Jerry Richardson go into negotiations, they could always have someone else who is less of a war-hawk take his place but they don't so you could draw the conclusion that they like having an "idiot like Jerry Richardson" in these meetings. He has be just as combustible as D. Smith if not more so. The blatant disrespect he showed to Manning a Brees just as an example.

On the bright side, at least this isn't as bad as the lockout the NBA might go through in a couple of months.

Even in their comments today after the players were punched in the face by this ruling, and had to face harsh language casting doubt on their entire case by the very people who would rule on an appeal of it should it come to that. De Smith pointed to 6/3 repeatedly for the hearing for the appeal of the injunction by the NFL and said the players have been preparing for this for two years. The NFL said this litigation has taken the parties away from the negotiation tables where this should be settled, not the courts and that they need to come together on their own to resolve this - as they've been saying since February or March that they need to be talking, not litigating.

De Smith has gotten bad enough that PFT has pointed it out a couple of times, and they've largely come across been pro-players in this. Another gem from today is "It’s a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game, Congratulations."

Of course they then point out the NFL hasn't sued anyone. Again, this guy is a lawyer, representing the players? And we're surprised that a deal hasn't gotten done?

The ruling yesterday, should hopefully get things going in the right direction, but again the NFL is the party that should be going above and beyond they started the ball rolling in this direction 2 years ago opting out of the CBA. One could argue that the lack of FA money spent last off-season was a due to the fact that there was an impending labor dispute on the horizon. (FWIW I don't believe that 100%)

The two sides need to get together. As it stands now, I have no plans to spend money on the NFL once this is resolved. I'm too pissed at both sides, but my position is behind the player. Personally I'm not much of a union guy. But IMO it was the owners who have take the stance that cause me to miss part of my favorite sport due to an argument between two groups that see more money than my entire family tree ever will.

At this point there are no winners here. Fans lose, owners lose, players lose. But I get the suspecion the owners don't care. The NFL has stopped contributions to players charities, they have canceled the rookie symposium, yet they will fine a rookie for missing it. It either is important and it should never be cancelled or it's not that improtant and player shouldn't be fined for it. They NFL and Owners on some teams have asked assistant coaches to take a 30% pay decrease duirng the lockout? Really what are the coaches not doing that they deserve a 30% pay cut? If the dispute is between the players then why are the assistant coaches being punished. It's little things like this that rub me the wrong way with the owners. They are easily in the top 5% of Americans in earning yet they are overly "greedy" to a fault.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Many of these points are pretty easily refuted.

Very few owners are footing the bill for stadiums on their own. Look at the Vikings, Zigi Wolf is looking for public money to fund his stadium and has even mentioned having to move the team if he doesn't get a stadium.

Players assume 100% of the physical risk (for which they are handsomely compensated I know.) the average age in which former NFL players die is 54. I'm too lazy but I can assure you the average age of an NFL owner is way past that.

Which study is that number from, the one in 94 about NFL lineman? Or the one by Boone more recently that was 53-59 depending on position? There are a lot of numbers out there, and that's why the game is changing for the better. Or are you suggesting that the game is not safter now than it was in the 70s? Does citing this mean you're for all of the safety measures that fans and players cry about Goodell implementing and fining players for? I think they need to go even further, teams should face heavy fines and even draft pick penalties for repeat violations similar to the Hines Ward 'neck injury' last season.

When was the last time a business that made an estimated 9 BILLION dollars in revenue wanted to ask its employes to inexplicably take a pay cut, while opting out of a CBA they had themselves negotiated?

I haven't seen or heard any proposal that would reduce the salary cap, in essence no players would be 'taking a pay cut'. I think the changes to training and other workouts (and at one point the 18 game season) would have created efficiencies and put more money in the NFL's pool to help contribute more to expenses like stadium construction and renovation. As far as I can tell 'taking a pay cut' has just been a pro-player semantics argument.

What have the players done right? From the beginning they have said "we want to play football." "We don't want to change the CBA." Yes that means that they got a good deal, but if there were two years left on the old CBA and they owners needed so badly to change it because they were losing so much money, again coming off a year with 9 BILLION in revenue why not open the books.

The players said they wanted to play football, the union decertified, that's why I have a problem with the union leadership, not the so much with the players.

If your company posted record revenue gains the last FY and asked you to take a pay cut you wouldn't be suspicious? You seem smart enough to me that you would wonder.

There isn't a 'player' that is taking a pay cut, because the salary cap isn't being reduced by any proposal. The owners are looking to restructure the business so in the end they get more of the pie, but there isn't a player who will suddenly make less as a result of the CBA outside of the incoming or next rookie class (depending on when the invetibable rookie wage scale that both sides at one point reportedly had agreed upon would take effect... you can bet class representative Von Miller is rooting for next season).

You asked what have the players done right? I ask you what have the owners done right?

They're obviously doing their due diligence to keep this game the great one that it always has been. Do you think the (rumoted) broke Al Davis has deviated from 'just win baby' to 'just money baby!'. Do you think Robert Kraft is looking for a few more million to tuck away in his billion dollar mattresses? I believe in general NFL owners believe in something bigger than a payday, while many players are living for their next paycheck. That's the nature of the business.

Rhetoric is all a part of the game. You keep bringing up D.Smith. To a point I agree with you. But here is the thing. The owners keep letting Jerry Richardson go into negotiations, they could always have someone else who is less of a war-hawk take his place but they don't so you could draw the conclusion that they like having an "idiot like Jerry Richardson" in these meetings. He has be just as combustible as D. Smith if not more so. The blatant disrespect he showed to Manning a Brees just as an example.

You're bringing up just the one incident Jerry Richardson had to discount the consistent rhetoric that De Smith apparently lives by? Really? I continue to bring up De Smith because I firmly believe he is the problem. His actions and his words are why I have the opinion that I have. He has led the players down this path.

The ruling yesterday, should hopefully get things going in the right direction, but again the NFL is the party that should be going above and beyond they started the ball rolling in this direction 2 years ago opting out of the CBA. One could argue that the lack of FA money spent last off-season was a due to the fact that there was an impending labor dispute on the horizon. (FWIW I don't believe that 100%)

The two sides need to get together. As it stands now, I have no plans to spend money on the NFL once this is resolved. I'm too pissed at both sides, but my position is behind the player. Personally I'm not much of a union guy. But IMO it was the owners who have take the stance that cause me to miss part of my favorite sport due to an argument between two groups that see more money than my entire family tree ever will.

At this point there are no winners here. Fans lose, owners lose, players lose. But I get the suspecion the owners don't care. The NFL has stopped contributions to players charities, they have canceled the rookie symposium, yet they will fine a rookie for missing it. It either is important and it should never be cancelled or it's not that improtant and player shouldn't be fined for it. They NFL and Owners on some teams have asked assistant coaches to take a 30% pay decrease duirng the lockout? Really what are the coaches not doing that they deserve a 30% pay cut? If the dispute is between the players then why are the assistant coaches being punished. It's little things like this that rub me the wrong way with the owners. They are easily in the top 5% of Americans in earning yet they are overly "greedy" to a fault.

Agree with many of your points (though I don't think the NFL will take a hit in popularity until they miss games, especially that 9/11 one) but the onus is on the players to compromise and start talking. They want to litigate a new CBA instead of negotiate one, that's why we are here today. They want a labor friendly judge like Doty in their back pocket like they've enjoyed the last few years to administer their labor agreement. That's got to change, and ultimately that's why we are in this position now more than any other.

A lot of teams are reacting differently to no football operations, there's little/nothing to prepare for, so those being paid are lucky they're not just furloughed.

If the players have their way, they will take this to trial within the next 2 years and give up those seasons (because that's how long some are saying it will take to get done in front of Judge Nelson). They want football on their own terms, and no other. The NFL can't resume in the meantime without breaking antitrust laws because the union decertified.

Meanwhile the NFL has made a bullet-point offer overnight without ever receiving a response to their previous 3/11 offer outside of 'worst deal in sports history (because a laundry list of good things for the players is bad apparently). I believe some call that bidding against yourself? If only there was more than one party talking in this conversation maybe something would get done.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

The US Chamber of Commerce has filed a 6600 word amicus curiae (friend of the court) supporting the NFL (similar to what the NHL did).

From Breer:

Chamber's arguments: 1) NLRB must "decide whether...NFLPA retains its duty to bargain"; 2) Norris-LaGuardia = Nelson can't grant injunction.

###

Mediation has concluded for the day and isn't scheduled to resume during any specific date, NFL counsel Pash said they plan to reconvene mediation in June sometime after the 6/3 court shenanigans.

I hope the player response is equally as civil.

[wco81]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Oh, it's the players now who don't want to play?

They want to litigate and not play for the next 2 years or so?

Is there a cite for that or you just making that up?


No court can compel the players to sign a CBA or even form a union. The owners have to offer a deal that will make the players recertify, to give them back the antitrust exemption.

Owners can now go court-shopping again to try to throw out the antitrust laws.

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

Oh, it's the players now who don't want to play?

They want to litigate and not play for the next 2 years or so?

Is there a cite for that or you just making that up?


No court can compel the players to sign a CBA or even form a union. The owners have to offer a deal that will make the players recertify, to give them back the antitrust exemption.

Owners can now go court-shopping again to try to throw out the antitrust laws.

The NFL is defending themselves from a lawsuit, not conducting one.

The quote on Twitter yesterday was actually a fear mongering 2-4 years, but I can't go back in Breer/Schefters/SportsLawGuy's twitter feeds far enough to link to it. If Brady v the NFL went to trial that wouldn't start likely until 2012.

The issue with offering a deal for the players to recertify is that the NFL is currently contesting that they are actually decertified in the first place. (this is a complaint to the NLRB, not litigation, and is also something the US Chamber of Commerce pointed out in their brief). Statements from players like Mike Vrabel recently saying De Smith works for them and underrepresented players should come together and elect a new board are pretty damning as it pertains to that complaint and could have gone a long way to provide the success the NFL as seen thus far.

The settlement of the Brady lawuit creating a new CBA would then provide federal oversight, which is what the owners are trying to avoid and is the gameplan of the players. This is why now that mediation is over the players will spin will be 'call our lawyers to talk settlement, we will be happy to talk at any time' and the NFL will insist on talking with the NFLPA that they don't recognize as decertified.

[p_rushing]

Re: Official CBA Thread

You can't keep stating that the owners optioned out of the CBA as a reason to side with the players. The CBA had a clause in it to allow the owners or the players to end it. The players agreed to it so that they could end it early and get more money if they wanted. They should have never allowed that clause, but their greed got the better of them and they are now paying the price.

The players now better come to the table fast or they are going to lose out big time.

[N51_rob]

You can't keep stating that the owners optioned out of the CBA as a reason to side with the players. The CBA had a clause in it to allow the owners or the players to end it. The players agreed to it so that they could end it early and get more money if they wanted. They should have never allowed that clause, but their greed got the better of them and they are now paying the price.

The players now better come to the table fast or they are going to lose out big time.

I side with the players because I'm an employee. Because there are owners like Mike Brown who would rather save a buck than win a championship. Because I see th average cost for a family of 4 to attend and NFL game reachin $500. Because they didn't opt out of the CBA. Because I will never pay a PSL for season Tickets. Because NFL salaries aren't guaranteed. Because I have a better chance of being an NFL player than I do an Owner. Because I've never seen an owner parylized on Sunday (or Saturday). Because 60% of an adjusted revenue seems fair. Because I've never bought a Dan Snyder jersey. Because I don't look forward to watching owners own on Sundays but because I look forward to watching players play. Because its the players that make the NFL the most popular sport in america not the owners.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[mestevo]

Re: Official CBA Thread

DeMaurice Smith continues to make the players and himself look less credbile - http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...from-de-smith/

His initial comments during a Tuesday night visit with Maurice Jones-Drew and Bryan McGovern of Sirius NFL Radio’s Late Hits amounted a reiteration of the point that Smith made on Monday.

A point that we still can’t understand.

“First league in the history of sports that has ever sued to not play their game,” Smith said. “When we reach a time or a moment in history when a professional sports league is suing to not play football, we’re in a bad spot.”

Actually, the more accurate statement could be that when we reach a time or a moment in history when the chief of a professional sports union is so badly bastardizing the facts, we’re in a bad spot.

“What do you think as a fan when you learn that the league that you write a check to, the teams that you’ve done nothing but cheer for for years are now suing to not play the game that we all love?” Smith later said, once again pushing the premise that the league has “sued” to implement the lockout. It’s simply not true; the league isn’t suing anyone, yet. The league is reacting to the lawsuit filed by the players when faced with the likelihood of a lockout.

Anyone who gets it understands what’s happening. The players sued to lift the lockout because any deal negotiated while the players are playing and getting paid to play will be better for the players. The owners have resisted the effort to lift the lockout because any deal negotiated while the players aren’t playing and aren’t getting paid to play will be better for the league. Defending against the players’ lawsuit, however, does not and never will amount to “suing” to not play the game.

The fact that Smith would imperil his credibility so openly and so brazenly demonstrates, in our view, the desperation he’s currently feeling. Once the Eighth Circuit decides to allow the lockout to remain in place, the question becomes when, not if, the players will demand that a deal be finalized so that they can continue to play football. Perhaps Smith thinks that, if he can get the players sufficiently pissed at the owners based on embellished and/or false allegations, they’ll suck it up and go without weeks if not months of game checks.

“We’re hoping that the court lifts the lockout,” Smith added, “but to me this is a low point in sports when a league that is extremely profitable, at the height of revenue generation with a loyal following of fans for the last 60 years has made a decision that it is much better to force the players into a lockout because you know that it is designed to get them to take a deal that you otherwise couldn’t negotiate.”

But that’s why employers lock union employees out. And that’s why union employees strike, as the NFL’s players did in 1982 and 1987. Withholding services and/or preventing folks from working applies leverage. The fact that, in this specific case, the notion of freezing the players out could be very effective doesn’t make it legally or morally wrong. The players may not like it, and the fans may not like it. Still, it’s no different from going on strike, and the players have never opted to refrain from striking out in deference to “the game” or its fans.

They also make a point that I tried to make earlier, but much cleaner:

Eventually, the interview focused on what we believe to be the heart of the current dispute — whether the players will continue to get 50 cents of every dollar that passes through the cash register, even as those dollars exceed $10 billion per year and eventually approach $20 billion per year, and more. Smith speaks as if the continuation of the 50-percent share has become a birthright for the players. At some point, however, it becomes a fair business consideration for the owners to assess whether the players should continue to get half of an exponentially growing pie, especially in light of the players’ viable alternatives.

Indeed, Smith explained that he called the league’s March 11 offer the “worst deal in the history of sports” because it would have cut the players’ share from 50 percent to something less than 50 percent. “It was an easy call to say that it was the worst deal in history because from the day that we would have taken their offer it would have forever severed the players of the National Football League from a fair share of the revenue that we all know that they generate,” Smith said.

Smith continues to overlook the fact that, even if the percentages shrink, the total dollars paid to the players will continue to grow. So why doesn’t Smith ever acknowledge that? Probably because he fears that more than a few players would respond by saying, “So we’re still going to make more money each year? OK, we’re fine with that.”

Though the NFL isn’t the NFL without the players, the deeper question at this point is whether the NFL players are truly responsible for one half of the revenue of an ever-growing sport. The league has created, over a period of decades, the industry that is the NFL, with the teams and the logos and the colors and the TV contracts and the stadiums and everything else that allows the players to perform at the absolute highest level of the game. The fact that so many rookies wanted to bask in the glow of being drafted despite also being locked out confirms that the NFL has become, over time, a big deal. Though the NFL became a big deal in very large part because of the players, the teams and the league have worked together over an extended period of time to build the game into what it now is.

Is it “fair,” then, for the players to continue to insist on half of every dollar earned? Or is it “fair” to focus on total dollars to be paid, and to negotiate a “fair” amount based on that premise? In resolving those questions, the players and the NFLPA* must remember that precious few industries include a work force that dictates the amount of the gross revenue it will receive.