Football's Future If the Players Win by Roger Goodell
 

There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams.

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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...526726626.html

Well gee Roger, maybe your ****ing owners shouldn't have opted out of the old CBA and started this shit.

^
I
I

These guys need to put a stop to this madness and sit down together until a deal is done. They're acting like children with a $9 Billion ball and threatening to go home.

Sorry, but people only go to the court of public opinion when they have a weak case legally. Goodell is ****ed, and I think he knows it. He probably has every owner in the league up his ass right now asking how this happened.

Remember when Roger Goodell was a much heralded new commissioner that was considered a great successor to Tagliabue?

**** this assclown.

Laz will be slobbering all over this thread.

"You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him"

Sound reason to me.

Problem is Goodell is not a benevolent god...

Roger, you are one hell of an amazing mind-blowing moron.

Its very simple: bargain in good faith. Thats it, just bargain in good faith.

EVERY GOD DAMNED MAJOR SPORT in the ENTIRE US except the NFL OPENS THEIR DAMNED BOOKS to their players.

If you need more money, fine. Prove it. If you open your books and explain why you need to take away another $600MM from the players and they dont buy it, OK fine. We'll probably have a strike and you can see who can hold out long enough.

Don't pretend the players woke up one day and decided, just for the hell of it, to de-unionize and file antitrust lawsuits. You drove them to this because you got greedy. You negotiated below-market TV contracts to get lockout payments, violating your fiduciary duty to the players in the process, and REFUSED to open the books, and you just assumed a judge would somehow rule that you had a right to a lockout even without a union. You didn't negotiate in good faith. Sorry NFL, you were the lieing scumbag in this story, you lose this round.

It was stupid for you to assume that you had this dominant negotiating position unsupported by law. Admit it, you screwed up. Now, go back to the table, and this time open your books.

The funny thing is that while this sounds bad it actually may not end up quite so bad. In this short term if this were to play out I would expect the smaller market teams to then recruit and develop the HS level talent. No CBA also means no minimum age which means the teams most desperate for talent can cherry pick the potential, but unpolished HS athletes. Put them on an NFL training program with judicious use of chemicals and they would develop physically quite quickly. Very high risk but somewhat high rewards too. Also no contract lengths so those you hit you could keep for a 10 year initial contract.

The bigger programs will lure the elite HS talent but the good to midrange should still be available for the mid sized NFL teams. Scouting HS talent becomes almost as important if not more so than the draft today.

I see nothing wrong with the Goodells statement. I'm not really a Goodell fan either.

So if the NFL goes total free agent will there be roster limits or will teams be able to sign as many players as they want? If that's the case the richest owners will buy up all the talent living the other teams with all the scrubs. And those guys won't make jack.

PhilFree:arrow:

Well, it definitely takes a huge set of stones, or something else, to lock out a workforce because you want to change the system, then when it backfires, turn around and write a huge column making the argument that a few months ago they didn't want to change the system at all. Well, duh.

It's like sticking your hand in a beehive, getting stung 231 times, then arguing that before you stuck your hand in there, the bees were getting along just fine, why'd they get so angry?

He's definitely the best the NFL could have put forth.

I'm not sure if I love him or hate him...

Exactly. The NFL made a reeruned gamble because they wanted an extra $600MM out of over 10 billion. Thats all this was about, just a measly 600 little million out of billions and billions. The players had a very good reason, based on prior lawsuits, to believe they were on solid legal ground if the NFL became unreasonable.

For that, Goodell and the reeruned owners prodding him forth were willing to risk the draft, roster limits, salary caps, player control, EVERYTHING, for just another little 600 million. Why? Because for some reeruned reason they thought the courts would rule in their favor. They were willing to gamble everything for that.

Well, NFL you were wrong, and you just screwed this up big-time. At this point, you probably need to go back to the player's union and BEG to go back to the old CBA.

with Tagliabue, you didn't know what you had until it's now gone.

I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article, in terms of the labor issues that could arise.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money. They didn't have the guts to make the tough decisions among themselves and settle the disagreements between the big and small market owners about how revenue should be shared. The small market owners were complaining 5 minutes after they signed the last CBA (that's almost not an exaggeration).

So instead of hashing it out, they went after part of the players' share of the money. They figured they'd run over them in both directions and get the extra money that way.

Instead, it blew up in their face, at least to this point... and now they're stuck with the pandora's box they opened. Goodell says it himself in the article... the players were fine with the status quo. That's the most unbelievable part of the article... he's leaning on the players argument that would've avoided the whole thing in the first place. That is some grade A hypocrisy.

There is a whole lot of sense being made in this thread, and frankly it surprises me. **** Goodell and the owners for being douchenoozles. IF they had gone for something that made sense like dumping the rookie salary cap and doing something good with it, they would have a compliant group in the players agreeing with them.

Instead they knew they were going to lock the players out based on the TV deal they signed, threw a contract on the table 2 hours before they knew the players would de-certify and then whined when they didn't take it.

I don't think the owners would have signed the last CBA without the opt out clause because they weren't that comfortable with the deal. The players signed a CBA that gave the owners an opt out and if they thought that the owners wouldn't opt out at the 1st chance then they weren't thinking very well. I believe the players at that time new they would sue if the owners excersized their option. This whole mess was predestined since 2006. The owners shouldn't have ever signed that CBA. That was the screw up. The owners gave up more then they were comfortable with and if they thought the players would ever give back any ground they weren't thinking very clearly.

That says the players know they got a sweet deal and got one over on the owners. I'd still like to see what the players want in a new CBA. I've never seen or heard a word about what they'd want in a new CBA. That tells me that they never really negotiated. If they had they would have put something on the table.


PhilFree:arrow:

OK I take part of my statement back.

you got some serrious stupid going there
HS plasyers as a farm team?
really

Shut it down

Well if I have some stupids god help what you have. How hard is it to realize that with CBA and no age limit there will be no quality athletes at the college level. The notion of not being 'physically ready' is complete bullshit. They are only not physically ready because they don't have access to the same nutrition/training experience in that they have in college. Physically most of them have stopped growing etc(but there are always a few exceptions). If they have the capability to go pro post or even during high school they will join independent programs and become physically 'ready' sooner. Much like you have kids playing AAU ball pre-college for NBA level competition. For instance the NBA instituting the 1 year out of college rule had nothing to do with physical characteristics.

Remove the classes from school and they'd have plenty of time to dedicate. Would they? Well that's part of the scouting program. It would be the only way that the small teams would have a chance to compete. Take the really raw talent out of HS, sign him to a 7-10 year contract and spend 1-2 years getting them football ready.

Without the 3 years out of HS rule there would be no reason for most of those good to great athletes to even head to college. Better to get on a NFL training program and be ready to play/get paid sooner. It would likely be a hybrid between the NBA/MLB systems. You'd have people being signed for raw talent and then developed, rather than having more polished players come out of college. It's a huge risk that they would develop but that's why the small teams would have to do it, because they'd have no shot for a player that's developed and proved they can play. Only those that have potential but have proved very little. The ultimate developmental projects. With a really quality scouting system it could work to make the smaller teams competitive. But considering they can poach the scouting too it's not clear how long it would enable them to stay competitive.

Well, the players agreed to the inclusion of the opt-out term, didn't they? And for that, they got something in return (the process of negotiation).

It should have been well within the contemplation of the players that the owners may opt out.

This has lasted longer than I thought it would. I still think they'll get a deal done before opening day. Really though, complete free agency and no restraints of trade is really the only way to settle these arguments using the "market"

People don't purchase auto insurance because they know they'll have an accident. It's a transfer of risk. It makes sense include the same protection in a TV deal. It's not particularly compelling evidence that the owners knew there would be a lockout.

Alnorth is torching this thread.

I don't see why the owners should open their books to their employees. Why should any private business be forced to do that? I have no problem the players wanting more money but the owners have a right to set what profit they want to make.

Godell is just pissed because this epic **** up is happening on his watch. I used to like him, but lately its making it harder and harder. He's turning into a big ole jackass.

The owners shouldnt, but the Players also have every right to ask for it. They can speak their mind. Its just one big ass tug of war right now.

Yes they should. It's called bargaining in good faith.

I understand what your saying, but these are really powerful dudes that hate people looking at all their business. I am on the players side, but you shouldnt have to show what your spending your money on. at least thats how i feel.

It is what it is. Godell is stressing, this is all on his watch.

You should pay more attention to whats going on here.

Hey now...

That's "D.J. Lazzy Left" to you, buddy.
Posted via Mobile Device

All the owners have to say now is.......get to work.
They tell the union to piss off since they have decertified.

There is no agreement, union is gone......NFL make up your own rules.

This is some the sky is falling crocodile tears from the owners, they know the draft, the cap and drug testing are all safe. The supreme court told them as much when they got their asses handed to them in the American Needle case. This whole thing is such a farce.

It's not just Goodell, remember DeMaurice Smith is also an asswhipe extraordinaire.

Having Tagliabue around wouldn't mean shit other than he has done this before. Smith wouldn't be working with him either.

I think the owners opting out is a moot point because in 2 years the same thing would be happening just like it is now. Everybody knew 3 years ago this was going to happen and they still couldn't get a deal done.

One way to look at it is:

The owners started it by opting out of the CBA.

Others would say:

In order to avoid a strike and lockout years ago the owners decided to agree to a bad deal for them and everyone knew the owners were going to opt out as soon as the agreement allowed them to opt out.

A moot point? Thats convenient to say when you're siding with the Owners.

Really, the biggest issues are amongst the Owners, themselves, IMO.

Bad deal? Boo ****ing Hoo. If they are loosing money, prove it.

That really is the issue.

The owners dodn't want to open their books, because they don't want that information open to the other owners.

They are already at odds on revenue sharing.

Funny thing is, the perception at the time was that Gene Upshaw got bent over.

My point was it is a moot point to blame this lockout on the owners because they opted out. They could have certaintly not opted out but that was just delaying the inevitable until 2013.

If the players don't like the NFL they can go play in Canada or the Arena League.

That is the stupidest ****ing argument ever.

**** this shit. just give me some ****ing football.

Good God. You cant be ****ing serious. :LOL:

Not really a moot point. They are the ones Locking the players out, regardless of when it happens.

Thats just too damned bad.

Every other major sport in this country opens their books to their players. If the NFL doesn't want to do that, then they can just live without a draft, without caps, without guaranteed player control, and rampant mercenary free agency.

If the league doesn't want all of that in the name of competitive balance without antitrust lawsuits, then the least they can do is show the same information that the MLB, NBA, and NHL owners show to their players.

You think 99% of the players want what you just posted? They want the Snyder paying Andrew Luck 10x what Manning gets? They want owners to tie up big money in a handful of players?

So basically you want the NFL to become MLB, only worse.


We won't even get a shot to draft the talent. They will already be going to Dallas, NY, etc.


Open system will kill the NFL overnight.


Besides, what you are proposing will also kill college football just like it kills college basketball.

All the league has to do is stop revenue sharing and they could end this nonsense.

Only if it's a publically traded company. Otherwise it's no one's business.

It sounds like you support the owners over the players because you have a dogmatic belief that business owners are always right and labor is always wrong.

Just to show you where I am coming from: I hate players unions. The MLB Players Association has pretty much destroyed baseball in Kansas City and changed the game so much that it's almost unrecognizable today compared to what it was like in the 1970s and 1980s.

And for the most part I side with managment over labor unions. Labor unions certainly have accomplished some good things ever since the Industrial Revolution, but today I think they do more harm than good. Just ask the American Auto Industry.

However, IN THIS CASE, the NFL owners are virtually 100% wrong and the NFL players are virtually 100% right. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. The owners started this fight. The owners showed that they were planning to screw the players when they left money on the table in the negotiation for the last television contract so that they could get the provision put in stating that they would still get paid even if they locked out the players. That right there is prima facie evidence regarding what has been in the minds of the owners all along.

As has been already stated several times in this thread, IF THE OWNERS ARE GOING TO CLAIM POVERTY, THEY NEED TO PROVE IT. The fact is that owning an NFL team is just about the most lucrative investment anyone could ever make. These guys are raking in billions of dollars. If they really aren't, then it would be a simple matter to prove it. Just open up the damn books.

Roger Goodell's OP in the Wall Street Journal is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. According to him, the sky is about to fall and it's all the players' fault. I've lost all respect for the man.

What a fine idea. :spock:

Could not agree more.

Welp, you should have talked those guys into extending the deal they had, Rog.

I agree, however, the Owners are claiming they are not making enough.

Also, I'd bet its not the players that they dont want to see their numbers, its other owners.

Hard to prove a monopoly when there are two other national leagues and a handful of other professional leagues.

Didn't that stop mattering when there ceased to be a player's union?

I don't think he's that far off in generally saying "You don't want a baseball-like situation".

But on behalf of everyone I say, screw you all, wake us when this is over.

"screw dem owners, make em open their books11!!" Kneejerk reeruns.

It is amazing how so many of you can understand so little. You will be the same people who bitch and moan when the NFL becomes MLB and your football team has as little chance of winning anything as your baseball team does now.

Why would this matter?

Zactly

Seriously? If this were a STRIKE I would agree. Its not. The players were content with what they had and were willing to adopt a rookie wage scale.

The Owners claim they arent making enough. BS. Prove it.

How does opening books make football into MLB? If the owners didn't want to be exposed as frauds, then they shouldn't have started this in the first place.

I don't understand all the owner resentment in this thread.

Why should the owners open their books?

The fact you think a business owner is required to open his books to his employees shows how far off base you are.

To prove that they need the 600MM they're demanding.

Yawn.

Someone wake me up when all of these multi-millionaire whiny bitches end their little tiff.

I dont resent the Owners. But when you're a billionaire and you're crying about not making enough, then I have little sympathy for you.

How many multi millionaires are there in the NFL?

How about when the billionaires end their little tiff?

The multi-millionaires are the players and were happy with the status quo. The billionaire owners were the ones crying.

Why should they have to prove it? They certainly have the option to do it, but I don't see why anyone should expect them to do it when they have other cards to play.

Should every player open up his finances to his team when he's negotiating for a contract extension or a FA contract?

WTF are you talking about? Are you so easily deceived?

It sounds like you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment. Why does their net worth make any difference here?

The team is already aware of what players make.

So the players are the ones who Opted out?

The team doesn't know what the player's expenses are. Surely that's relevant when the team decides how much the player "needs" a bigger contract. This is effectively the same argument being made about the owners' books. It's ridiculous, I know.