Football Football's Future If the Players Win by Roger Goodell - Page 4

Quesadilla Joe · 04-25-2011, 09:44 PM

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

MOhillbilly · 04-26-2011, 07:34 AM

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

**BigMeatballDave** · 04-26-2011, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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

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

**BigMeatballDave** · 04-26-2011, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

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.

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

**alnorth** · 04-26-2011, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

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.

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.

Chiefnj2 · 04-26-2011, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

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.

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?

**notorious** · 04-26-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

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.

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.

Garcia Bronco · 04-26-2011, 08:49 AM

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

Garcia Bronco · 04-26-2011, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcxiv

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.

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

Royal Fanatic · 04-26-2011, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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

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.

Royal Fanatic · 04-26-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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

What a fine idea.

**BigMeatballDave** · 04-26-2011, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fanatic

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.

Could not agree more.

Brock · 04-26-2011, 09:05 AM

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

**BigMeatballDave** · 04-26-2011, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcxiv

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.

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.

Simplex3 · 04-26-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

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

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

Simplex3 · 04-26-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

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

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

04-25-2011, 09:44 PM
Quesadilla Joe Abolish The Salary Cap! Join Date: Mar 2008 Casino cash: $3428675	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
Posts: 19,906

04-26-2011, 07:34 AM	#46
MOhillbilly Mama Tried Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $9949903	** this shit. just give me some **ing football. __________________ True Son of Liberty
Posts: 23,371

04-26-2011, 08:49 AM	#52
Garcia Bronco No Keys, No Problem Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver Casino cash: $3883136	All the league has to do is stop revenue sharing and they could end this nonsense.
Posts: 31,571

04-26-2011, 09:05 AM	#57
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	Welp, you should have talked those guys into extending the deal they had, Rog.
Posts: 47,314