Football Football's Future If the Players Win by Roger Goodell - Page 3

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

kcxiv · 04-26-2011, 03:58 AM

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.

**BigMeatballDave** · 04-26-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

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.

You should pay more attention to whats going on here.

**Gonzo** · 04-26-2011, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

Laz will be slobbering all over this thread.

Hey now...

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

King_Chief_Fan · 04-26-2011, 06:15 AM

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.

veist · 04-26-2011, 06:17 AM

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.

Marcellus · 04-26-2011, 06:18 AM

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.

**dirk digler** · 04-26-2011, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

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.

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.

Chiefnj2 · 04-26-2011, 07:15 AM

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.

**BigMeatballDave** · 04-26-2011, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

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.

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

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

**BigMeatballDave** · 04-26-2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

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

milkman · 04-26-2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

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

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

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.

milkman · 04-26-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

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

**dirk digler** · 04-26-2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

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

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

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.

Chiefnj2 · 04-26-2011, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

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

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

milkman · 04-26-2011, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

04-25-2011, 09:44 PM
Quesadilla Joe Abolish The Salary Cap! Join Date: Mar 2008 Casino cash: $3908675	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: 19,794

04-26-2011, 03:58 AM	#31
kcxiv In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Central Valley, Cali Casino cash: $8807996	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.
Posts: 29,110

04-26-2011, 06:15 AM	#34
King_Chief_Fan Praise Him Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: none ya Casino cash: $5875486	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.
Posts: 12,181

04-26-2011, 06:17 AM	#35
veist Veteran Join Date: Oct 2006 Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 1,324

04-26-2011, 06:18 AM	#36
Marcellus Diablo Negro Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $2862662	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.
Posts: 69,437

04-26-2011, 07:15 AM	#38
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $7843688	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. __________________ Mismanaging the clock.
Posts: 22,395