Eric Winston: Don't care if NFL 'dies out in 20 years' because of work stoppage

[TLO]

Winston not concerned if NFL dies out in 20 years

ESPN.com news services

NFL Players Association president Eric Winston agreed with DeMaurice Smith's recent comments that a work stoppage in 2021 is likely, given the current relationship between the union and the league.

But Winston took it a step further Monday in an interview with WCPO in Cincinnati, suggesting that players shouldn't care that a strike or lockout "might kill the goose that laid the golden egg."

"Honestly I don't care and I don't think the guys in this locker room care whether [the NFL] is going to be around in 20 years because none of us are going to be playing," Winston, an offensive tackle for the Bengals, told WCPO. "So if these guys [the owners] want to own for a long time, then they can own for a long time. But another work stoppage might kill the golden goose."

EDITOR'S PICKS

Why Roger Goodell's NFL reign isn't in danger
Fans love to hate The Commish, but he's now likely to have a tenure that surpasses his predecessor Paul Tagliabue's in length.

NFLPA head: 2021 strike or lockout very likely
A work stoppage in 2021 is "almost a virtual certainty," NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith told Sports Illustrated in a video interview posted Thursday.

Smith, the union's executive director, said last week that "the likelihood of either a strike or a lockout is almost a virtual certainty."

The NFL's current collective bargaining agreement, which is set to expire in 2021, was finalized after a 132-day lockout in 2011.

Winston, 33, said the union is preparing its players for another prolonged labor dispute but emphasized that the long-term health of the NFL is not a concern of his.

"I'm certainly not worried about it," he said. "I'm not going to be around that long. I don't care if even if there are rookies in here -- they're not going to be playing that long.

"So if this thing dies out in 20 years, it dies out in 20 years. That's not really my concern, and I don't think it's any of these players' concern in here either."

Smith, when asked about Winston's comments during an interview Tuesday with ESPN's Outside The Lines, said the veteran offensive lineman is "a person who understands the frame and business of football."

"The owners locked us out the last time," Smith said. "They took the decision to make sure that people didn't have a place to work. They cut off the insurance to our families. They wanted to force an 18-game schedule. What are you supposed to do? Fight back, right?"

Winston is a 12-year veteran and has been the NFLPA's president since March 2014. He acknowledged that there are "always going to be issues between labor and management" but also said that a work stoppage will be the "inevitable outcome" unless serious progress is made in negotiations.


The NFLPA has clashed in recent years with the NFL over player discipline in such high-profile cases as Adrian Peterson's suspension for child abuse, Tom Brady's Deflategate suspension and, most recently, Ezekiel Elliott's suspension for alleged domestic violence.

Winston also was asked Monday why he thinks fans tend to side with ownership in labor disputes.

"My personal theory is [fans] think they have a stake in the team," he said. "I was as blindsided by it probably as anybody [in 2011]. ... They don't look at the issues the way we look at issues -- wages, hours, working conditions, and health and safety. You could talk about the same thing in a coal miners' union meeting as we do in our meetings.

"I think fans look at the team and say that that's their team -- they have an ownership in that. That's why you always hear fans say 'Oh, the salary cap,' and they think they're kinda the general managers. Obviously fantasy football and things like that play into it."

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Step 1: Fire DeMaurice Smith
Step 2: Hire a nasty shark
Step 3: Threaten a strike
Step 4: Publicly state that the quality of NFL games will decrease significantly if the Player's go on strike or are replaced.
Step 5: Watch as the TV networks scramble, become scared and put clauses into their new deals IF a strike or lockout occurs.


The result: The owners suddenly are more open to negotiations that give a little back to the players.

I agree with all, except wasn't DSmith supposed to be the shark when they hired him? Seems I remember something to that effect.

I don't fault the players for wanting a little back, I just don't like all the whining now when THEYRE the ones who caved last time. IOW, if you didn't like the idea of Goodell hearing disciplinary stuff, why did you agree to it?

[Red Dawg]

Work stoppage my ass. Players are dependent on their checks to support their life like it's an episode of ballers. Life span in the league is short for most of them so they have to get all they can as fast as they can.

Owners are the ranchers and players are the cattle. They already gave Goodell an extension just to send the message "We do whatever we want."

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo

No matter what side anyone is on it's going be the fans that pay for it. I have no problem with players wanting a bigger piece of the pie they deserve it. However the owners will just increase the price of tickets and the fans will pay for it.

When people can't afford to go they wont and then there will be less revenue for the NFL.

im not paying for shit, it will save me money if anything! im totally fine with my baseball and basketball. Lakers will be pretty good by then, so im ok with it! lol

[ILChief]

he's still in the league?

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by ILChief

he's still in the league?

That surprised me too lol. He will probably get Andy Dalton killed and hear cheers then AJ McKlingon comes in.

[GloryDayz]

The dude just needs to shut the **** up. He's NOT a gladiator. But he might be a better gladiator that a football player. The dude is pure ass...

[sedated]

Originally Posted by Valiant

Only thing they should try for is guaranteed contracts. And the league shouldn't pay out more than 50% revenue.

Guaranteed contracts in a sport with this many injuries, and career threatening ones, might be a lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

It would probably take an even more drastic restructuring of finances, and we know the owners are just fine with things as they are.

[DaneMcCloud]

I'm all for the NFL guaranteeing contracts but they'll need to make changes to the salary cap structure.

Maybe something like the Top 30 contracts are treated just as they are today, but the bottom 23 aren't counted against the cap as dead money.

I'm sure that some that some type of agreement can be made.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It's anchoring.

The problem Winston faces is that he doesn't have an infinitely long timeline to work with here. His constituency is comprised of people who have Bentley payments to make and 4th and 5th houses to pay for as well as extremely short careers in which to make the money that allows them to do it.

Worse still, for the guys on the fringes, a single year out of work now doubles the pool of new labor (effectively 2 years worth of draftees) and thus greatly increases the odds of them just being out on the street, $500K poorer and with no long-term NFL prospects now.

So for the super rich that are spending like sailors on shore leave, they'll want that money to cover exorbitant expenses because they live like idiots. For the young guys on rookie deals who are looking at 3-5 year careers, they can't afford to lose 20% of their career and earning potential in a Pyrrhic victory.

There isn't an easy 'negotiation tactic' for Winston here because he doesn't really have a hammer. At least not one that's easily wielded. So he has to throw some haymakers in the hopes they land. Sooner or later his own constituency will lack the political will to allow him to follow through on any long-term leverage.

I damn sure don't envy him.

I'm with you, put me in the who gives a shit what he says while negotiating camp.

[kccrow]

The NFL finds itself behind other sports in paying players, but they also pay more staffing. So, without financial reports of every single major sports' league team, it'd be difficult to judge just where they sit.

Superficially, this is how the major leagues stacked up in 2016 (did my best to get it to show up):

SPORT	ROSTER	TEAMS	TOTAL PLAYERS*	TEAM CAP**	LEAGUE CAP***	AVE PLAYER SALARY	APPROX .REVENUES	APPROX. PLAYER SHARE
NFL	53	32	 1,696 	 $155,270,000 	 $4,968,640,000 	 $2,929,623 	 $13,000,000,000 	38.2%
MLB	40	30	 1,200 	 N/A 	         $3,633,530,244 	 $3,027,942 	 $9,500,000,000 	38.2%
NBA	15	30	 450 	 $94,140,000 	 $2,824,200,000 	 $6,276,000 	 $4,800,000,000 	58.8%
NHL	23	31	 713 	 $73,000,000 	 $2,263,000,000 	 $3,173,913 	 $3,700,000,000 	61.2%
*Not all leagues must meet the Max Roster Size, so approximate to show comparison								
**NFL and NHL have hard caps, NBA has soft cap w/ exclusions and special allowances so may be higher, MLB does not have a cap.								
***MLB reported as total of Opening Day Salaries

Any way you slice it, there's an issue here.

For starters, the salary cap has not aligned with the supposed 48/47% of revenues agreement in the CBA, which means that it looks like NFL teams are receiving approximately 19% of revenues from Non-AR related activities (Reference page 62 of the CBA, I'm not explaining this here).

If I'm the NFLPA, I'm pushing for a hard 47% of prior year's total revenues rule for the next CBA and a doubling of the current Vet Minimum scale along with guaranteeing all contracts for injury.

This would have pushed last year's cap to about $176 million, an increase of $21 million.

I kind of used the Chiefs as a close approximation for changing the minimum wage scale, assuming an approximate 37 players tiered as 5 at 0 yrs, 5 at 1 yrs, 6 at 2 yrs, 6 at 3 yrs, 5 at 4-6 yrs, 5 at 7-9 yrs, and 5 at 10+ yrs. This is probably a bit rich, but better to be conservative. This would push vet minimum salaries in this situation from an estimated $27.9 million to $55.8 million. The approximate increase in salary cap based on the hard 47% would about cover the increase in veteran wage scale.

This ensures that all players make at least $1 million per year.

I don't expect the NFL to pay players more than other leagues on a per player basis, that'd be ridiculous. They should, however, be putting all athletes in a situation where they'd be financially stable within their first 3 years in the league as they'd otherwise be in other sports.

I also don't expect NFL owners to pay as much as the NBA and the NHL do to players. Staffing and Stadium operating costs are significantly higher and you cannot get around that. The NFL also have the 88 Benefit and other provisions that don't exist in other leagues. And this may be a contention point going forward, what to do about CTE and how much of the burden NFL owners should be responsible for.

My theory is that the owners should provide the safest possible environment for players, but they shouldn't be held completely responsible for CTE. Players know the risk and are paid handsomely to play a game. I think players should plan to insure themselves in that event and know that it's a likely outcome.

In any event, my 10 cents.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by ILChief

he's still in the league?

That was my first thought as well.

[ping2000]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Dethpicable

Yeth he ith.

[jaa1025]

This should embarrass the players and they should find a new spokesman. Jesus.

[GloryDayz]

Eric Winston is disgusting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[loochy]

Spoiler!