Football's Future If the Players Win by Roger Goodell

[Quesadilla Joe]

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

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by BCD

Would they have decerified had they knew the Owners werent going to lock them out?

They decertified so they could file their law suit.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Dante84

The owners opted out first.

Furthermore, if someone cocks back their arm to punch you, you had better take action to avoid getting your nose broken.

No, nj2 is right.

When the players reached the conclusion that the owners weren't going to negotiate in good faith, they decertified before the deadline, and the owners locked out later that evening.

However, had the players waited for the deadline to pass, they would not have been able to decertify for at least a month, so they had to be proactive.

[Royal Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Prove someone else needs it.

It can be argued that the burden of proof is on the side that is fucking everything up. If the players were striking and demanding more money and saying that the owners can afford to pay them more money, the burden of proof would be on them. But the owners are locking out the players and saying the owners need more money because it's just so gosh darn hard to make a profit as an NFL owner.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

They decertified so they could file their law suit.

BECAUSE THE ****ING OWNERS LOCKED THEM OUT.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

1. Yes

2. Yes. I supported the Wisconsin unions when they tried to block collective bargaining.

The reason why I support the owners it is with the belief that the players want to dramatically alter the game where it is no longer competitive except for large market teams.

The players didn't want to alter anything.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

The reason why I support the owners it is with the belief that the players want to dramatically alter the game where it is no longer competitive except for large market teams.

How in the world is it possible to make this conclusion from the facts as they exist today?

They want the same CBA that has been in effect for 5 years. Why have you not been complaining since 2006 about the horrors of the current contract. To me other than the rookie pay scale its been fine.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by BCD

No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

Spoken like someone who's never tried to run an organization.

Tell me, if anyone can do it why isn't everyone doing it?

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Spoken like someone who's never tried to run an organization.

Tell me, if anyone can do it why isn't everyone doing it?

[Jaric]

Originally Posted by patteeu

How can JD and Amnorix possibly enjoy a patriot's game now that Drew Bledsoe and Ty Law are gone? NFL fans root for uniforms. The players in the uniforms come and go. If the Patriots trade Tom Brady and Matt Light to the Chiefs for Matt Cassel and Branden Albert, do you think JD and Amnorix are going to switch allegiance to the Chiefs or are they going to stick with their hometown team and hope they can recover from such a questionable trade?

Pat the issue isn't a question or player vs laundry. The point is that without the superior athletes putting out a superior product the NFL wouldn't be what it is today.

Which is why no one gives a shit about arena football, or NFL Europe, or the UFL. Not because the owners aren't as good, but because the players aren't as good.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Spoken like someone who's never tried to run an organization.

Tell me, if anyone can do it why isn't everyone doing it?

Well, not everybody inherited an NFL team from their daddy.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Prove someone else needs it.

Do you have any idea, at all, about how collective bargaining works in professional sports?

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by BCD

If it were a sudden change, I would care. Its the same as using replacement players. Do not want.

I didn't want to go to work today. It happened anyway.

If the owners put on scab players and never rehired a single guy from today's NFL rosters you'd be back in two years or less. I'd bet money on it.

With that said: 85% of the players on a roster today would be back in the NFL in less than two years, even if the new deal sucked compared to the last deal. Athletes aren't generally known for their financial prowess.

[Royal Fanatic]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

1. Yes

2. Yes. I supported the Wisconsin unions when they tried to block collective bargaining.

The reason why I support the owners it is with the belief that the players want to dramatically alter the game where it is no longer competitive except for large market teams.

I'd be interested to hear why you think the PLAYERS want to dramatically alter the game when all they wanted to do was keep the status quo.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by milkman

It's been reported numerous times that the newer owners want to change how the revenue sharing system works.

They want to take a number of things off the table, that will reduce the the share substantially.

It's also the primary reason that owners opted out of the CBA and are looking for a larger share of those profits.

Large market owners want bigger profits, and small market owners know that they won't be able to compete unless thay retain some of that money.

That is true and I can understand why considering the small market teams can't compete with the rich teams like the Cowboys.

You’ve heard all about the $9 billion that the league rakes in annually. Surely there must be a profit in there somewhere? Of course there is. Teams like the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots are making so much money it’s not even funny anymore.

But while high-revenue teams are raking in the cash by the truckload, low-revenue franchises make only a small profit - if they’re lucky - and are probably even losing money. And the situation can only get worse – by design.

The way the current labor deal is structured, the following hypothetical example is happening in real life all the time. Say the Cowboys sell the naming rights to Cowboys Stadium for $32 million. Good news for the Cowboys, because they get to pocket all of that money. Bad news for the other teams, because those 32 million count towards the Total League Revenue as defined by the CBA, against which the salary cap is calculated. Effectively, this means that the salary floor for each team just went up by an additional $1 million, because the salary cap and salary floor is determined by the revenues generated by all teams, including the high-revenue teams.

If you’re a low-revenue team like the Buffalo Bills or Jacksonville Jaguars, you don’t like that one little bit, because where the Cowboys just made money, you’re expenses just went up, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Think about that for a minute: every time Jerry Jones has a great idea and increases his revenues, the expenses for all other teams go up. How crazy is that?

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by BCD

No. Anyone can 'Own' an NFL franchise. Not many can play football at the level of an NFL player.

Its clear to me now that I should have added "IF YOU HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO"