Lockout Watch: 4/29: Stay of injunction granted, LOCKOUT REINSTATED

[terpskins10]

Minimum player salary is almost 10x the median HOUSEHOLD income in the U.S.

Hard to feel sorry for either the players or the owners.

Yep, and the average NFL career is also 1/10th as long as the average person's career. A fact that many seem to overlook.

[Hubbs]

So... can we trade players right now?

[The_Godfather]

Yep, and the average NFL career is also 1/10th as long as the average person's career. A fact that many seem to overlook.

They also seem to overlook the long term costs of football related injuries.

[Wrong Direction]

Yep, and the average NFL career is also 1/10th as long as the average person's career. A fact that many seem to overlook.

Do they have to stop working when they retire from the NFL? Are the owners suggesting they want to reduce the minimum salary?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yep, and the average NFL career is also 1/10th as long as the average person's career. A fact that many seem to overlook.

So what's the problem? They "retire" from the NFL at 27, 30, 35, whatever and can now enter the workforce and use their degrees. There's nothing preventing that at all.

Damn...just saw WD's post...we're making the same points today, I just must be going in the right direction since I'm a few minutes behind you!

[The Tris]

The NFL are on course to have to divulge all their accounts, IMO this will be the major block against stadium subsidies going forward. Got to wonder what they want kept hidden?

The fact that the NFL was not going broke based on the previous CBA.

[RANSKINS98]

I read about this earlier and got me thinking. What happens to undrafted rookie free agents? Teams cant sign them until rules of free agency are established, and once they have been established they are thrown in with regular veteran free agency. What do they do, just play the waiting game or look for work in UFL or Arena or Canadian? That's gotta be a tough decision for them.

[88Comrade2000]

The NFL are on course to have to divulge all their accounts, IMO this will be the major block against stadium subsidies going forward. Got to wonder what they want kept hidden?

See the Mccourts divorce case and how the owners uses the Dodgers money. That's the number #1 reason- owners using the money in non-football related ways like paying salaries to relatives that aren't involved with the team.

#2 would be owners don't want other owners to see how much they make.

---------- Post added April-26th-2011 at 06:43 PM ----------

I understand the sentiment, but that sure stinks for people who have been fan since Anthony Carter, or even the purple people eaters.

State budgets aren't what they were in the 90's. Those teams that didn't get new stadiums are now at a distinct disadvantage as opposed to the teams that did.

That's the way things are. Just leave the records/colors in Minny. Same thing with any other team that relocates.

[jflow78]

Based on what has been said via multiple league sources (twitter) is that if the league year begins at the rejection of the appeal. Rules would need to be in place. Perhaps, the same rules as they had last season.

I'm talking about if they continue with the antitrust course, which will take a year in courts, at least. If both sides take it that far, then everyone is going to lose on this.

[WHALEN]

By ROGER GOODELL

Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.

For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system - which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries - has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket - pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.

For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.

Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else - including the vast majority of players as well as the fans - would suffer.

Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.

In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue - on his own behalf or representing a class - to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.

Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program - or not.

Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.

In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.

Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players - those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars - play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance - close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests - are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.

[SittingBull]

What the hell is Goodell talking about? The players were fine with the previous CBA agreement. Who's talking about getting rid of the draft and not testing for drugs? The NFL and the owners look worse every time they open their mouths.

[bedlamVR]

No ...no they wer not fine - with the existing CBA - All the owners did by ending the CBA early was bring forward this fight forward a few years . They accepted the CBA but always wanted a bigger slice of the pie .

What Roger Goodell is taking about is possibly a doomsday scenario but one that could very easily come to fruition and calling Goodell a an idiot or clueless is not helping - Goodall is probably trying to drive further wedges into the players side and so he should . The union approach to smash the NFL into a million parts and that was never the intention of the NFL owners . If the Union sucessfully challenges the CBA, and established case law and president then there is nothing going to put it back and I truley believe some teams will go to the wall and the few star players could be earning 10,20 30 40 times what the average player is earning and while the average NDFL salary may sky rocket (doubtful) the lower floor will get a lot more crowded and alot lower . . . . .

As fans to support the Union and the players bringing this action is to support a very very poor version of the NFL - Look at Eueopean Soccer for a model of what it will be like . Look at all the teams that take part in the European leagues and yet the champions league is played out by the same 4 teams year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year . ...The other thing you have to look at with the European leagues is just how many teams that try to compete (even just to stay in the top levels) how many franchises make money - actually turn an operating proffit ? - Owners are going to love that - and if there is no CBA and no union then when a player get injured then if I was an owner I would fire their ass imediatly (and write it into the contracts that this would be possible) lets see how the players respond to that .

To get rid of the CBA is to slay the golden goose .

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Funny quote from Mike & Mike. Said if the stay in not granted and NFL is open for work tomorrow owners are gonna tell Snyder to leave the country so he doens't go crazy and sign all the FA.

[authentic]

Funny quote from Mike & Mike. Said if the stay in not granted and NFL is open for work tomorrow owners are gonna tell Snyder to leave the country so he doens't go crazy and sign all the FA.

I think it was a bit of an ignorant quote. Even last yr we didn't sign "All" the FAs. BTW, Snyder is not involved in personel decisions.

[frommd]

Sally Jenkins summed it up pretty nicely here.

The plain fact is that the owners are the ones who opened the Pandora’s box — and what popped out is a very big monster. Instead of concessions and pay cuts from players, what they may get from them is an Armageddon. Instead of controlled costs, the owners could be looking at the end of the salary cap, the draft, free agency and the union, with every player an independent contractor free to get the best deal for himself.

The owners’ best hope to settle this dispute and maintain the current structure of the league is clear: make a fairly generous offer to the players that treats them as what they are, essential partners without whom there would be no game on the field. But first they will have to admit to themselves that they made a mistake and were wrong. Good luck with that one.

[MartinC]

Sally Jenkins summed it up pretty nicely here.

Its true the owners could be looking at the end of the salary cap, the draft, free agency with every player being a free agent - she omitted that there would also be no salary floor but I guess that did not fit with the editorial angle ...... But then of course so will the players. This will cut both ways.

With no salary floor and no guaranteed veteran minimum what do you think will happen to salaries for backups, special team players and specialists? The top rookies will do very well, star players will do very well - the rest? Not so good. Why do you think that a group of middle ranking players wanted separate legal representation and a seat at the table? Look both the owners and the Union are making a mess out of this situation - how we got here is to a large extent irrelevant, both sides need to get it through their skulls that where this is heading absent a negotiated agreement is in no ones interest.

[U C S D SkinsFan]

I think it was a bit of an ignorant quote. Even last yr we didn't sign "All" the FAs. BTW, Snyder is not involved in personel decisions.

Unfortunately, Snyder has earned and deserves the jokes about him. What the hell is the difference between Snyder being involved and the decisions shanny and Allen have made so far..they made terrible moves last year. I hope they don't devalue the draft again and blow our next regimes picks along with blowing all of our picks now.

[The Tris]

Its true the owners could be looking at the end of the salary cap, the draft, free agency with every player being a free agent - she omitted that there would also be no salary floor but I guess that did not fit with the editorial angle ...... But then of course so will the players. This will cut both ways.

With no salary floor and no guaranteed veteran minimum what do you think will happen to salaries for backups, special team players and specialists? The top rookies will do very well, star players will do very well - the rest? Not so good. Why do you think that a group of middle ranking players wanted separate legal representation and a seat at the table? Look both the owners and the Union are making a mess out of this situation - how we got here is to a large extent irrelevant, both sides need to get it through their skulls that where this is heading absent a negotiated agreement is in no ones interest.

I think it is ignorant (not saying you think this) to believe that the players actively want this Doomsday Scenerio as Goodell claims. Players want a CBA, and from the beginning the players were fine with the status quo.

Now that the players have the courts behind them, the ownership would be wise to do as Jenkins says, and actually try and negotiate a new CBA.

And from this point on, DeSmith has no business being involved in the negotiations. He did his job, and swung the balance of power behind the players through litigation. Now he needs to step back and let both sides hash something out.

[MartinC]

I think it is ignorant (not saying you think this) to believe that the players actively want this Doomsday Scenerio as Goodell claims. Players want a CBA, and from the beginning the players were fine with the status quo.

Now that the players have the courts behind them, the ownership would be wise to do as Jenkins says, and actually try and negotiate a new CBA.

And from this point on, DeSmith has no business being involved in the negotiations. He did his job, and swung the balance of power behind the players through litigation. Now he needs to step back and let both sides hash something out.

I don't think the payers want it - but its the logical conculsion of the legal case they brought absent a separate agreement. I agree with you totally that the lawyers need to shut the you know what up and both sides need to get round a table, park the egos and do a deal which benefits everyone. I keep saying this but its worth repeating (at least in my mind) a negotiated settlement is the only long term solution to this situation.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Unfortunately, Snyder has earned and deserves the jokes about him. What the hell is the difference between Snyder being involved and the decisions shanny and Allen have made so far..they made terrible moves last year. I hope they don't devalue the draft again and blow our next regimes picks along with blowing all of our picks now.

Thank you i was going to say the same thing. And it looks like we are on that path again.

[The Tris]

The Doomsday Scenerio/legal case is the only bullet the players had left to them.

It is no worst a threat to create action than the league locking players out.

In fact, I would say that it is the lesser of two evils - at least we would have football - the owner's plan involved the active loss of games!

[MartinC]

The Doomsday Scenerio/legal case is the only bullet the players had left to them.

It is no worst a threat to create action than the league locking players out.

In fact, I would say that it is the lesser of two evils - at least we would have football - the owner's plan involved the active loss of games!

If the players tactic is to use this as a doomsday tactic to create leverage then I can understand it. I hope though the Union leadership has explained the implications to their members and has a plan of what to do if the owners call their bluff.

[frommd]

I don't believe the players want the Doomsday scenario. But, I do think they will use it to negotiate a better deal.

The point being the owners initiated this action by locking out the players to get a better deal for themselves. But, in doing so, they may have to cave and give up even more before we get football again.

[The Tris]

If the players tactic is to use this as a doomsday tactic to create leverage then I can understand it. I hope though the Union leadership has explained the implications to their members and has a plan of what to do if the owners call their bluff.

I mean, we talk about how bad the Union's litigation could be for the league - how about remembering how bad the lockout is and loss of games could be???

Goodell acts like one party is threatening the future of the league. Well hell, the NFL has done a lot more than threaten, they acted! Over a month ago.

And I sure hope that this is a bluff to force meaningful negotiations. If not, DeSmith is worst than I already think he is.

[MartinC]

I mean, we talk about how bad the Union's litigation could be for the league - how about remembering how bad the lockout is and loss of games could be???

Goodell acts like one party is threatening the future of the league. Well hell, the NFL has done a lot more than threaten, they acted! Over a month ago.

And I sure hope that this is a bluff to force meaningful negotiations. If not, DeSmith is worst than I already think he is.

My position is that both sides have blame in getting us to the position we are in and both sides need to play a full part in getting an agreement. Putting the blame on just one side or the other is being too simplistic.