Skip to content

League responds to transparency issue

Jeff Pash, Greg Aiello, Jerry Richardson

So much for the cone of silence.

With the union getting their position on transparency out into the public, NFL lead negotiator Jeff Pash spoke with NFL Network’s Albert Breer on the way in to mediation Wednesday.

Pash told Breer the NFL has made more financial information available than ever before.  He says the data available is more than even the individual teams get.   He says the league has offered to go further.

“[Pash] was upbeat before transparency issue came up, then got a bit frustrated,” Breer writes.

The transparency issue seems to have that affect on both sides of the table.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
43 Responses to “League responds to transparency issue”
  1. chapnastier says: Mar 9, 2011 10:10 AM

    There, now the pro-union people on here can get the damn point. They are BOTH responsible for this mess. Not just the owners as most would want you to believe.

  2. jw731 says: Mar 9, 2011 10:13 AM

    So much for the cone of silence.
    —————————–
    So much for the use of spellcheck….

  3. ohioraider says: Mar 9, 2011 10:14 AM

    So who is for the cheer leaders having transparent uniforms and who is against it?

  4. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 9, 2011 10:21 AM

    Is it more than likely that the reason the league won’t show the union folks “the books” is that they would expose that the NFL is making fistfuls of money? That the owners must be pinching themselves every day over all the cash their little monopoly generates for them? That owning an NFL team is like having your own printing press at the Treasury?

    Nah–that couldn’t possibly be it.

  5. jfreddoso says: Mar 9, 2011 10:24 AM

    Maybe they could just give them a peak at the secret stuff……

    I am a season ticket holder–I think that qualifies as a shareholder in my favorite team. I want to see their books as well. I don’t mind my team making a profit but I want to see the profit margin. Maybe they could ease off on the price of nachos or something if the margins are a little too steep.

    Also, Jerry Richardson is in this picture–I hope he is not in the negotiating session. Mara, Hunt and Rooney are just fine.

  6. packattack1967 says: Mar 9, 2011 10:27 AM

    Dont expect a Barack Obama wannabe to conduct himself in a forthright manner. He’s emulating the master of deceptive practice.

  7. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 9, 2011 10:29 AM

    chapnastier says: Mar 9, 2011 10:10 AM

    There, now the pro-union people on here can get the damn point. They are BOTH responsible for this mess. Not just the owners as most would want you to believe.

    ———————

    The reason most folks believe that the OWNERS are forcing this crisis is because they are.

    The OWNERS pulled the plug on the CBA early. The players were happy to continue the way things were.

    The OWNERS are the ones that are preparing a lock out. The players are not threatening to strike.

    The OWNERS are the ones that negotiated a sweetheart TV deal for “lockout insurance” so they withhold a prolonged work stoppage. The players did not.

    Facts are stubborn little things and they reveal that your analysis of “blame” is poorly thought out.

  8. chapnastier says: Mar 9, 2011 10:41 AM

    @ clinton

    The CBA expired. It was above and beyond a sweetheart deal for the players. Everyone knew it when they agreed to it. To think this was a blindside attack is just idiotic at best. The players were getting too much and everyone knew it but you.

    The players are refusing to agree to a new CBA. So technically while they are being locked out, they are doing so at their own choosing. I suggest de-certifying and working as non union employees.

    The owners negotiated the TV deals because they knew the greed of the players. Genius idea if you ask me.

    I am sorry you are so confused.

  9. PFTiswhatitis says: Mar 9, 2011 10:43 AM

    @clintonportisheaddinthesand: why not just give the players 75% and allow the owners to use their 25% to maintain the stadium, fields, market, legal costs etc. ?
    It’s easy when you only have to be an employee and expect everything to be delivered to you.

  10. mick730 says: Mar 9, 2011 10:44 AM

    The transparency issue is a canard. The Green Bay books have been open forever; the last fiscal year’s books have been public record since March 31 of last year and they show a dramatic drop off in net profit for the franchise and skyrocketing player costs.

    But the union and their supporters refuse to even acknowledge that these financial statements exist.

  11. dryzzt23 says: Mar 9, 2011 10:46 AM

    The PLAYERS are just as greedy as the owners.

    But the PLAYERS are the ones who will do illegal drugs, PEDs, get DUIs, and get arrested. This causes suspensions which have a direct impact on the team itself. Yet these same players are less than forthcoming about their drug use and illegal activities.

    When will the PLAYERS show the owners their true colors?

    The PLAYERS UNION seems to have no accountability whatsoever, the liberla media plays them as the “victim” and I am sure that they would be protrayed as such even if it was the players who opted out of the CBA.

    I back the owners b/c there should NEVER be a business entity where the employees can railroad the business owner.

    I would love to see what these players would do for an occupation if the owners just shut down the NFL.

  12. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 9, 2011 10:47 AM

    chapnastier says: Mar 9, 2011 10:10 AM

    “There, now the pro-union people on here can get the damn point. They are BOTH responsible for this mess. ”

    Sorry, wrong again.
    The owners agreed to the current CBA, then pulled the plug when they changed their minds.
    They’re crying about losing money but won’t open their books.
    They tried to backdoor the whole process by negotiating their slimy “lockout insurance’.

    The owners, by their greed initiated this whole mess – the players meanwhile, don’t want to change anything. Yeah, I can see where the players are at fault here…

    Besides, clearly you would take an anti-union, pro-management stance no matter what the issues were.

  13. firstclasspack says: Mar 9, 2011 10:48 AM

    Owners are exactly that….OWNERS! It’s up to them what they do with the money their company earns. What happens if their team sucks for a decade and revenues are down? Do you think the players will take a pay cut to help the owner out. The owners are assuming all of the financial risk in owning a business. Good for them if they made a solid investment. It is not for the employees to decide how much they get paid. I don’t like unions at all. It’s just a way for a group of employees to force the owneres to give them something instead of letting the employees hurt the business by not working.
    Having said all that, I don’t have any sympathy for either side but I do beleive the players should be happy with the amount of money they are making for being athletic.

  14. damnvarmint says: Mar 9, 2011 10:49 AM

    Not to mention it might show just how much the good people of Texas helped pay for JerryWorld……

  15. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 9, 2011 10:56 AM

    mick730 says: Mar 9, 2011 10:44 AM

    “The Green Bay books have been open forever; the last fiscal year’s books have been public record since March 31 of last year and they show a dramatic drop off in net profit for the franchise and skyrocketing player costs.”

    But they still made a profit last year, right?
    Nearly $10 million I believe.

    So that’s really at the heart of all this – the owners are crying because their profits aren’t as large as they used to be.

    That’s what this is really about.

  16. jfluke65 says: Mar 9, 2011 10:59 AM

    Yeah, I wonder why the players were more than happy to continue under the old deal?Maybe ’cause they knew it was a good one for them?
    If the Packers are showing a downward trend in profits, it makes sense the rest of the league is too. I’m no Packers fan, but I recognize that they among the more rabid fans in the league, and GB is one of the most popular teams in the country.

  17. justadude71 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:07 AM

    @dryzzt23:

    We do not know if owners do illegal drugs or not. They certainly are not held accountable (unlike a player if he is caught) if they do.

    All teams but the Packers are not accountable with regard to their finances, since no one may view their records and they insist on keeping it that way.

    The owners were held accountable when they did not act in the best interest of all parties by negotiating TV contracts that served only their interests.
    Let me make it clear: Those TV contracts where specifically negotiated so the employer could twist the employees arm and break it.
    An employer must make sure his business can survive and turn a profit, but he can not do so at the expense of those he employs!

    If the owners are really losing money, or if they simply need more of the profits to pay for stadium loans then fine. They need to come forth and prove this by disclosing the necessary information.

  18. realitypolice says: Mar 9, 2011 11:09 AM

    chapnastier says:
    Mar 9, 2011 10:41 AM
    @ clinton

    The CBA expired.
    ================

    Ummm…………..yeah. The CBA expired much earlier than it was intended to because the owner’s exercised their option to opt out in last year.

    Just keeping it real.

  19. savocabol1 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:12 AM

    The reason most folks believe that the OWNERS are forcing this crisis is because they are.

    —Lets go ahead and dissect this piece by piece……

    The OWNERS pulled the plug on the CBA early. The players were happy to continue the way things were. – – – Really? Because of all the information coming out it seems that the NFLPA are unwilling to let the current CBA continue.

    The OWNERS are the ones that are preparing a lock out. The players are not threatening to strike. – – – – – While the season was going on the players were voting on their stance of de-certifying (preparing for a lockout)

    The OWNERS are the ones that negotiated a sweetheart TV deal for “lockout insurance” so they withhold a prolonged work stoppage. The players did not. – – – – The media is calling this lockout insurance. The NFL negotiated these deals. Please find one soul on this Earth that thinks that these deals were done souly for the purpose of preparing for a lockout. Plus it is a moot point anyway, the ruling was in favor of the players.

    Facts are stubborn little things and they reveal that your analysis of “blame” is poorly thought out. – – – – well said…….

  20. olskool711 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:15 AM

    One question, why hasn’t the players union, in all these years, ever demanded that the former players who weren’t being taken care of medically be included in all their previous sweetheart agreements? Decades of agreements with the union and just now there is concern over the former players?

    I starting to agree with those who say the players are actually more self serving and greedy than the owners.

  21. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Mar 9, 2011 11:16 AM

    I think most NFL fans understand that even if the owners completely open up their books, and demonstrate clearly and convincingly that the current business model is not working as projected, then the union would likely offer only a token concession re: further investment in growing the game. That’s because some—if not most—unions operate under the assumption that once you do a “giveback,” you never get it back. Yet, absent additional investment, how does the union (which views itself as an equal business partner with the owners) propose to grow the game to increase revenue for both sides?

  22. marvin49 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:28 AM

    @clintonportisheadd

    Incorrect on SO many levels.

    If you are living in a bubble and look ONLY at whats happened THIS year, then you are correct. We aren’t living in a bubble tho.

    4 years ago, the CBA expired. The owners and players were in a very similar situation to right now and at the 11th hour the OWNERS gave in and gave up more of the pie than they wanted to.

    In the past few years, the revenues have been dropping sharply for the teams. The Packers are the only team whose books are WIDE open (because they are publicaly owned). Their revenues have dropped from 30 Mil, to 20 Mil, to 10 Mil in the past 3 years.

    There are PLAYERS in the NFL that make more money than that BY THEMSELVES. Am I crazy or is it INSANE that a singel player would make more money than the entire Green Bay Packer organization…especially because the Packers are the ones who take on all of the financial risk.

    The owners elected to opt out of THIS CBA because the deal didn’t work. Even Kevin Mawae has admitted that the players got a “sweet deal” last time.

    I’m not saying that the NFL is perfect. I’m not saying that they are even right in most cases. They do have a right tho to make money. They don’t exist for the sole purpose of making the players rich.

    Its nice to stand on your soapbox and preach, but next time do a little research.

  23. skinsfan16 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:28 AM

    You would love to see what these players would do ? You sound like a complete idiot. These players would be doing whatever they’ll be doing in two to three years anyways. Thats the average career span. By the way, most players aren’t millionaires . 90 % of them in fact aren’t. So excuse them for fighting for every penny they can get before they’re forced to retire at the ripe old age of 30 and deal with the wonderful side effects that playing pro football brings. In case you didn’t realize it, the owners are allowed to own until they croak! And they really are BILLIONAIRES.

  24. marvin49 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:30 AM

    @olskool711

    The answer from the NFLPA has always been that its because they work for CURRENT NFL players. You know, the ones who are still paying their dues.

    Thats the reason that Mike Ditka and several others were not the biggest fans of Gene Upshaw.

  25. marvin49 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:36 AM

    @savocabol1

    Well….I agree with you on disagreeing with him…but you are a bit off in terms of the facts…

    1) The NFL opted out of the CBA. The players were perfectly happy with it. The NFL was losing revenue every year and thus opted out.

    2) The players knew the NFL would force a Lockout. The move to decertify simply makes it illegal to lock them out and gives them the ability to sue the NFL on Anti-trust grounds. It actually a pretty shady move by the players to decertify considering that they plan on reforming the union as soon as there is an agree ment. Its like, “OK, you have to deal with the union when we ask for money, but when you want to deal with the union on NFL issues…..nope, we decertify and sue you.”

  26. 44kyle says: Mar 9, 2011 11:43 AM

    The statement on NFL transparency is brought to you by the same people who blatantly lied in the Super Bowl seating fiasco.

  27. marvin49 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:43 AM

    @skinsfan16

    So the hell what? Playing in the NFL isn’t a RIGHT. These guys aren’t forced to play in the league. The NFL doesn’t exist for the purpose of creating rich players. Oh, boohoo…they only get to play for 3 years. The MIMIMUM salary for an NFL player is in the 400K to 500K per year range. Name another job for 22 year old that pays that much.

    The owners are rich. They own the teams. They also take on all the financial risks. They and their families EARNED the right to be in their position. When individual PLAYERS earn more money than entire franchises, something is wrong.

  28. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 9, 2011 12:02 PM

    marvin49 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:28 AM

    @clintonportisheadd

    Incorrect on SO many levels.

    If you are living in a bubble and look ONLY at whats happened THIS year, then you are correct. We aren’t living in a bubble tho.

    4 years ago, the CBA expired. The owners and players were in a very similar situation to right now and at the 11th hour the OWNERS gave in and gave up more of the pie than they wanted to.

    In the past few years, the revenues have been dropping sharply for the teams. The Packers are the only team whose books are WIDE open (because they are publicaly owned). Their revenues have dropped from 30 Mil, to 20 Mil, to 10 Mil in the past 3 years.

    ——————–

    I am never incorrect. You are.

    1) The owners gave up more than they wanted to? Really? Says who? Was a gun pointed at their heads? These astute businessmen and their legal all stars got conned by some jocks? Is THAT what you are selling?

    2) The Packers REVENUE in the last year was $258 million. What you posted as revenue was actually operating profit. Now how can anyone tale you seriously when you don’t know the difference between those two things?

    The Pack made $5 million in profit last year and have $130 in the bank. They have almost no debt.

  29. wryly1 says: Mar 9, 2011 12:09 PM

    This issue could not be more clear and simple. If the owners say they need a bigger cut of the revenues for specific expenses, they MUST show where the money has been going. Duuuh!

  30. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 9, 2011 12:13 PM

    marvin49 says: Mar 9, 2011 11:43 AM

    The owners are rich. They own the teams. They also take on all the financial risks. They and their families EARNED the right to be in their position…..

    ——————–

    You just keep asking for it don’t you?

    There is NO/NONE/NADA financial risk in owning an NFL team. Its a license to print money. You are part of a monopoly (as judged by the courts) that dictates to it’s TV partners what they will pay (as exposed in the lockout insurance case) .

    The only way you can screw it up is to mortgage your team in order to buy into Manchester United as the Glazers did.

    And how did Jim Irsay, John Mara, McCaskey, Ford, Dean Spanos, etc “EARN their right”( as you put it) other than by winning the sperm lottery?

  31. jfluke65 says: Mar 9, 2011 12:13 PM

    Keep crying for the players plight (those that are). Even with an avg career of only 3 years, they’ll gross more than the avg American will in 20 at a ‘real’ job. Do they risk their bodies? Yes. So do Firefighters, Police, Military personnel (even when not in war zones- lots of hazardous jobs), constuction workers, anyone working with heavy machinery, etc. everyone chooses their profession. Yet not many get paid so handsomely. And then, when they retire, have the ability to use thefame gained from that profession into even more money.
    How would the players respond to the idea of marketing deals being applied to the salary cap? Those deals are only there because of their status as an NFL Player.

  32. mick730 says: Mar 9, 2011 12:17 PM

    And here’s something else for the “poor, poor, abused players” crowd and their union:

    11 Packers on the current 53 man roster are each scheduled to make more in the upcoming season than the franchise made for the entire year.

    This whole CBA is skewed totally the wrong way.

  33. tedknight40 says: Mar 9, 2011 12:43 PM

    Why don’t the players open up their “financials” so that the owners can see where their money is being spent once they supply paychecks.

    I sure they will be happy to know that the paychecks they supply probably pay child support to an average of 25 kids per team, 125 cars, 3600 pieces of jewelry, and investments in snowblowers in Southern California!

  34. Deb says: Mar 9, 2011 12:50 PM

    So what if the last CBA was a “sweetheart deal” for players? If owners didn’t like the terms they shouldn’t have signed. It’s irrelevant that some players buy illegal drugs. So do some doctors, lawyers, teachers, preachers, and NFL execs. It’s irrelevant that some players couldn’t find good-paying jobs outside the NFL. No owners could field teams without players. So what if owners have risked money to launch these ventures? Players have risked lives and health to make them succeed. They are entitled to compensation commensurate with the revenue they generate.

  35. captainobvious1 says: Mar 9, 2011 12:55 PM

    I just don’t get the anti-player sentiment here. The owners voted 30-2 to approve the current CBA in 2006. In 2008 they opted out of the agreement citing the fact that they signed a “bad deal”. The players never opted out of anything. Never threatened to strike, never complained about the system.

    Regarding the anti-union sentiment, I’ve read a lot of people saying – “the owners deserve whatever they get”, “unions are destroying society” stuff. It’s important to realize that this is NOT a traditional employer/union relationship.

    First, the NFL as we all know it doesn’t exist without a union. It can’t by law because the NFL is not a single business entity, but 32 separate businesses competing in a singular market – see American Needle vs. NFL.

    Get rid of the union and you’ll have European soccer type movement of players where contracts are purchased from other teams and there is no restriction on the age of players allowed into the league. Those bumper recruiting classes in college – forget it. You’ll have a basketball type situation where the best players head straight to the NFL from high school. You will therefore also not have a draft. You will also get a baseball style system where because there is no salary cap or salary floor, a few big market teams will consistently dominate the small market teams. I’m sure all the Packers/Steelers/Chiefs/Bucs/etc. fans would love that. Furthermore, there would be no restrictions on the length or value of contracts signed by players. You’ll see a lot of short term high-money deals.

    So whatever your opinion on unions in America, realize that the game you love wouldn’t exist in anywhere close to its current form without the NFLPA.

    Regarding money, no other organization that I am aware of stipulates that it’s employees get “x” percent of the company’s revenues. So when said organization (which is enjoying record revenues) says that the % needs to be cut, wouldn’t you want to know why? All they want is to see the same type of information that the Packers have already provided (because they had to). If at that point, the players see that profits are going down, the game can’t grow, etc. and they still won’t make concessions, then to hell with them. But I don’t think it is at all unrealistic in this type of labor arrangement to want to see why you’re about to get screwed before you agree to the screwing.

  36. bunjy96 says: Mar 9, 2011 12:57 PM

    It seems to me, based on what I have read, its the union who are leaking specific information.

    Only 2 quotes have seen from the league are from Batterman and Pash.

    The mediator needs to put a clamp on all them, and hard.

    Lets not have the negotiations done in the media.

    Why the hell is Fajita opening his yap? Among others in the union.

    Sick of it!!!

  37. skinsfan16 says: Mar 9, 2011 1:12 PM

    @marvin49

    If your so jealous about how much the players earn, why don’t you strap on a helmet and go make a team . Then go star in a Movie , because those actors are all Millionaires ! The more you complain about how much the players earn , the more ignorant you sound about the business of football. Your also wrong about the minimum salary. Financial RISKS of the owners. Risky business . Thats why there’s so many owners trying to sell and so many previous owners on food stamps. Oh, by the way, those marketing deals happen for less than 1% of the players in the league. Get your out of shape butt out of your computer chair and start training so you can get the next multi-zillion dollar deal!

  38. jfluke65 says: Mar 9, 2011 1:32 PM

    captainobvious1 says:
    Mar 9, 2011 12:55 PM
    -I just don’t get the anti-player sentiment here. The owners voted 30-2 to approve the current CBA in 2006. In 2008 they opted out of the agreement citing the fact that they signed a “bad deal”. The players never opted out of anything. Never threatened to strike, never complained about the system.-

    Of course not. The players got a good deal and know it. Why would they opt out?

    -Regarding the anti-union sentiment, I’ve read a lot of people saying – “the owners deserve whatever they get”, “unions are destroying
    Get rid of the union and you’ll have European soccer type movement of players where contracts are purchased from other teams and there is no restriction on the age of players allowed into the league. Those bumper recruiting classes in college – forget it. You’ll have a basketball type situation where the best players head straight to the NFL from high school. You will therefore also not have a draft. You will also get a baseball style system where because there is no salary cap or salary floor, a few big market teams will consistently dominate the small market teams. I’m sure all the Packers/Steelers/Chiefs/Bucs/etc. fans would love that. Furthermore, there would be no restrictions on the length or value of contracts signed by players. You’ll see a lot of short term high-money deals.-

    Much of that already happens.

    -So whatever your opinion on unions in America, realize that the game you love wouldn’t exist in anywhere close to its current form without the NFLPA.-

    Maybe. But many of us would argue that the game and the league would be better overall.

    -Regarding money, no other organization that I am aware of stipulates that it’s employees get “x” percent of the company’s revenues. So when said organization (which is enjoying record revenues) says that the % needs to be cut, wouldn’t you want to know why? All they want is to see the same type of information that the Packers have already provided (because they had to). If at that point, the players see that profits are going down, the game can’t grow, etc. and they still won’t make concessions, then to hell with them. But I don’t think it is at all unrealistic in this type of labor arrangement to want to see why you’re about to get screwed before you agree to the screwing.-

    Not entirely true. All businesses follow a model of some sort. For most, it dictates a labor cost of 40% +/-. It also dictates a profit of 20%+/-. So at 258 mil in revenue for the last year reported, the Packers should have seen a profit 30 mil+. Seeing that one of the most popular franchises in the league isn’t generating the desirable profit, or even close really, should be ebough for players to realize there really is a problem.

  39. bleedblue18 says: Mar 9, 2011 1:34 PM

    It’s amazing how ignorant people can be. THE PLAYERS ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. It isn’t a boss/employee relationship, it’s much more of a partnership

    Those who say the players should just take what ever the owners want to give them are ignorant. The owners need the players just as bad as the players need the owners. Say what you will about the players high salary’s the reason they get them is these guys are rare. Out of the 310 million people in United States very few people have the skills that these players have. There are only 1,692 players in the NFL.
    Owners want to play hard ball and and low ball the players and the players leave and form a different league or go to the UFL, the NFL would be screwed. We want to see the stars play, the best of the best not a bunch of scrubs or scabs.

  40. marvin49 says: Mar 9, 2011 2:06 PM

    @skinsfan16

    NFL Minimum Salary:

    Years of Service / Minimum pay
    0 / $325,000
    1 / $400,000
    2 / $475,000
    3 / $550,000
    4 / $635,000
    7-9 / $760,000
    10+ / $860,000

    In addition, I don’t have a problem with the players making that money. My objection isn’t that I’m jealous. I’m well aware of how difficult it is to be one of the select few who have the ability to play in the league. I have no problem whatsoever with the players trying to get all that the market will bear.

    Thats the rub tho. The current CBA is giving the players more than the market will bear. Its within the rights of the owners to desire to make money from the franchise that they own. When ELEVEN Green Bay Packers make more than the profit of the entire Franchise, there is a problem.

  41. jfluke65 says: Mar 9, 2011 2:12 PM

    Sure, let the players form their own league. Then lets see if they open their books to the employees.

  42. eagleswin says: Mar 9, 2011 2:33 PM

    Deb says:
    Mar 9, 2011 12:50 PM
    So what if the last CBA was a “sweetheart deal” for players? If owners didn’t like the terms they shouldn’t have signed. It’s irrelevant that some players buy illegal drugs. So do some doctors, lawyers, teachers, preachers, and NFL execs. It’s irrelevant that some players couldn’t find good-paying jobs outside the NFL. No owners could field teams without players. So what if owners have risked money to launch these ventures? Players have risked lives and health to make them succeed. They are entitled to compensation commensurate with the revenue they generate.
    =================
    The owners aren’t signing the CBA deal the players want now and are getting blasted for it. You can’t say the owners shouldn’t have signed the last CBA if they don’t like it and be upset that they don’t give the players what they want this time around.

    The players are entitled to negotiate the compensation they feel they deserve. If they don’t think they are being fairly compensated they are entitled to shop their services elsewhere. What bugs me is the players don’t want to shop their services elsewhere, they want to pull some shady legal maneuvering to force the owners to give them what they want. Think what you will of the owners but union’s very public “Union Decertification Tour” held during the regular season was ridiculous.

    If the players voted to decertify the union (which they did) and they had a legitimate reason to do so, the union would currently not exist. That was a one use silver bullet that they used 20+ years ago when they pulled a fast one on the courts. There are no “working conditions” in dispute, just money.

  43. Deb says: Mar 9, 2011 3:11 PM

    @eagleswin …

    You have completely misstated this situation. The owners signed an agreement with the players in good faith, decided a couple of years later they didn’t like it, and threw it out before it expired because they want a bigger piece of the pie, not only from players but from one another in terms of renegotiating their revenue-sharing agreements.

    Of course working conditions are in dispute. Physiologists have calculated that playing one regular-season NFL game creates the same wear-and-tear on the human body as a low-impact car crash. The league wants to increase the number of games while simultaneously cutting player compensation. That means significantly increasing the physical damage to players, thus increasing their risk for serious injury during each season and shortening their overall playing time and earning capacity. The league has ample data on the dangers of this proposal, and anecdotal evidence suggests most fans are against it. But the league is determined to move ahead for the sake of increased profits with no thought for player safety.

    Also in dispute are healthcare and retirement benefits for players suffering disabilities from their time in the NFL before huge salaries were the norm.

    This is not a right-to-work situation where you can leave your company and go to a better one. The players and owners are partners in a venture in which they are mutually dependant. The players need their teams in order to earn a living. The owners need their players in order to field their teams. But historically, players in all sports have been treated horribly by team owners. I realize that now it seems as though they lead a charmed life–and many do. But it’s not always as simple as it seems.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!