Skip to content

Judge Nelson asks owners and players why they aren’t in mediation

Antitrust Hearings Against NFL Owners Begins Getty Images

The court has been adjourned for a second time during Wednesday’s antitrust hearing, with session expected to pick back up at 3:00 p.m. ET.

Greg A.  Bedard of the Boston Globe has a few interesting facts about the proceedings thus far.

Judge Susan Nelson reportedly mentioned mediation a few times early in the session, and wondered why the owners and players aren’t in mediation now instead.

Nelson also indicated that she’s “having a hard time with is a lockout being legal after a union decertification” according to Bedard.

The NFL’s attorney David Boies spent a lot more time answering questions from Judge Nelson than Jim Quinn, the attorney for the players.

“Nelson was very prepared,” Bedard writes.  “Said this is all she’s done for two weeks.”

Perhaps that means we won’t have to wait too long for a decision.  Beyond that, we’ll leave the analysis to those with law degrees.

Permalink 69 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
69 Responses to “Judge Nelson asks owners and players why they aren’t in mediation”
  1. thetobygrizwold says: Apr 6, 2011 2:42 PM

    So… no progress. Anyone surprised?

  2. erstwhiledoc says: Apr 6, 2011 2:42 PM

    Sounds like the court holds sessions that last as long as the last round of negotiations did.

  3. tuckercarlsonisthevoiceofreason says: Apr 6, 2011 2:44 PM

    “Nelson was very prepared,” Bedard writes. “Said this is all she’s done for two weeks.”
    __________________

    Well, that and putting together her mock draft board.

  4. hobartbaker says: Apr 6, 2011 2:44 PM

    Good thing she isn’t Lazy Susan. That would leave the rest of us as Dumb Waiters.

  5. saberstud75 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:45 PM

    That is a good question to ask the players, since the ball is in their court. They walked away from the negotiation table with an offer on the table which they didn’t bother to counter.

  6. thewhitestguyhere says: Apr 6, 2011 2:48 PM

    let’s try and remeber that is an negotiation between world class atheletes and millionaire and billionaire owners and organizations. NOT a battle between the management of Denny’s and the cook staff. Dont go comparing apples and oranges

  7. stealthjunk says: Apr 6, 2011 2:50 PM

    As an attorney, I wouldn’t read so much into Judge Nelson’s questions. During motion hearings like this one, a judge’s job is essentially to play devil’s advocate to see how each side responds. This will narrow down the issues and assist her in drafting her opinion.

    With that said, you can tell a lot from what issues she does focus on and ask questions about. For example, the fact that she seems to be focusing her time on the legality of the lockout rather than irreparable harm standard strongly suggests the players are winning the argument by defining the key factors the way that they want them to be defined. But I’m not in the courtroom so hard to say.

    Let’s all just hope and pray Judge Nelson sends them to mediation.

  8. fatelvis77 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:50 PM

    As I said on this site two weeks ago, she’s going to give them one last chance at mediation before she slams one side or the other. IMHO, it’s the owners that get slammed because the NFL has been found to be a monopoly on several occasions in the past and you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. It’s called collateral estoppel. I suspect she called the recess to give both sides one more chance to go to mediation and she’ll give them a week or two to work it out.

  9. easyeddie says: Apr 6, 2011 2:50 PM

    Mediation with a judge? Lock ‘em in til they agree on a mutually beneficial arrangement.
    I wonder what the lawsuits are costing the taxpayer?

  10. chazk100 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:51 PM

    saberstud: because the offer didn’t include the one thing they said would be required in order for them to consider any offer…

  11. bruno7711 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:51 PM

    If she throws their butt in mediation I will have a ton of respect for her. This 9 Billion dollar mess doesn’t belong in the courts! Figure it out and lets get back to football already.

  12. umiami11 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:51 PM

    Just end the damn lockout and score one for the fans!! PLEASE

  13. broncfanor says: Apr 6, 2011 2:51 PM

    Maybe she should ask whether or not the union really decertified seeing as they continued to operate like they were a governing body.

  14. thingamajig says: Apr 6, 2011 2:52 PM

    She actually spent the last 2 weeks doing nothing but reading PFT?

  15. airraid77 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:53 PM

    this is going to the supreme court….even though judge nelson will everything in her power to keep it from leaving her jurisdiction……….GOOD LUCK judg Nelson.

  16. euroamericans says: Apr 6, 2011 2:54 PM

    How are the owners suppose to mediate with no union to talk to? The players decertified before they were locked out.

  17. airraid77 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:55 PM

    the boston globe? compared to the NYT? The NYT is conservative comparitively spaeaking. No wonder you and your reporter are all for the players.

  18. snowpea84 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:56 PM

    I’m sick of everything about this.
    Why con’t the NFL teams collude without a union?? If you take one NFL team, and put it on its own, I don’t think it would stay in business very long. They are inseperable.

  19. angrycorgi says: Apr 6, 2011 2:56 PM

    “Judge Susan Nelson reportedly mentioned mediation a few times early in the session, and wondered why the owners and players aren’t in mediation now instead.”

    The NFLPA*’s response: “Ummm…Cuz we thought Judge Doty would tell the owners to give us 75% of the gross revenue…why didn’t you pass this case to Doty??”

  20. waitingguilty says: Apr 6, 2011 2:56 PM

    Someone on an earlier thread mentioned it’s always bad when a Judge vocalizes support for your case during the proceedings, but before their decision.

    As an observer of human nature, I think there is something to this. Nelson seems to be stating her understanding of the players case as a matter of record during the proceedings.

    Not tot read too much into this, but it’s like she’s paving the way for a pro owner ruling and making sure along the way to make it clear she is giving the players a fair shake.

    It would not surprise me at all to see her rule for the owners

  21. marinofreakout says: Apr 6, 2011 2:56 PM

    Nelson also indicated that she’s “having a hard time with is a lockout being legal after a union decertification” according to Bedard.

    oh, so shes having a hard time with the crux of the case? good to know. (that is, if im interpreting the misquote correctly)

  22. rpiotr01 says: Apr 6, 2011 2:56 PM

    “Nelson also indicated that she’s “having a hard time with is a lockout being legal after a union decertification””

    The decertification was a sham, a tactical maneuver. They have no intention of not being a union. That’s why the lockout should stand.

    Geez, what is so hard to understand about this? Morons on the street like me understand, why can’t this judge?

  23. txchief says: Apr 6, 2011 2:57 PM

    The best outcome for all NFL fans is for the judge to force the league and the on again, off again union back into mediation.

  24. zn0rseman says: Apr 6, 2011 2:58 PM

    If this judge is anything more than the union lapdog that she probably is, this will be the easiest case she has ever thrown out because the decertification of the union is an obvious sham.

    It really should be that simple. Case closed.

  25. Deb says: Apr 6, 2011 2:58 PM

    Go Judge Nelson! Lift the lockout and order these numbnuts to mediation with a judge (a female judge!).

    @saberstud75 … I don’t think you understood her question. She doesn’t question the right of the players to decertify–she’s questioning the right of the owners to lock them out and why both sides aren’t in mediation. Perhaps the players didn’t bother to counter because the owners sat on the proposal for a week and delivered it hours short of their deadline.

    The players had to decertify before the deadline or they would have had to wait six months to respond to any lockout by the owners. The players tried to get the owners back to the table during the waiting period before the hearing, but the owners refused to give them assurances they wouldn’t use the negotiations against them in their case against the decertification.

    You can’t reasonably expect the players to resume negotiations if the owners intend to use the act of negotiating against them in court. Get real.

  26. berniemadoffsides says: Apr 6, 2011 2:58 PM

    How about the fans boycott the Draft if nothing is resolved by 4/28? If the fans truly matter, let’s let our voice be heard: don’t show up to the Draft.

  27. eagleswin says: Apr 6, 2011 2:59 PM

    Judge Susan Nelson reportedly mentioned mediation a few times early in the session, and wondered why the owners and players aren’t in mediation now instead.

    Nelson also indicated that she’s “having a hard time with is a lockout being legal after a union decertification” according to Bedard.
    ———-
    Which is it judge? Are they a union that the owners can talk to in mediation or do the owners have noone to talk to other than lawyers?

    Remind me of who walked out of the last round of mediation meetings?

  28. 2011to2020lions says: Apr 6, 2011 3:00 PM

    The Players walked away not the owners.

  29. KIR says: Apr 6, 2011 3:01 PM

    When the judge rules AGAINST the lockout. I’m sure the legal scholars on this sites comments section will call her dumb, unfair blah, blah, blah. Well, at least we will have uninterrupted football. :-)

  30. realitypolice says: Apr 6, 2011 3:03 PM

    thetobygrizwold says:
    Apr 6, 2011 2:42 PM
    So… no progress. Anyone surprised?
    ===============

    Umm…..no.

    I don’t think any legal analyst anywhere in the world expected “progress” today.

    This is a HEARING, not a trial.

    Not exactly sure what you were expecting. The ruling on this motion may not come for weeks, and will be immediately appealed.

  31. jpmelon says: Apr 6, 2011 3:03 PM

    The league is going to suck if they get back to playing without a CBA….if you have a player on your team that you really like, you better hope the cowboys don’t want him too.

    I’m hoping for forced mediation and a charge of contempt of court for walking away from the table….I doubt a liberal judge will put D. Smith in his place though.

  32. doowix says: Apr 6, 2011 3:05 PM

    This is a long day for all these lawyers. The number of hours they work and the number of hours they bill for may actually match up for a change.

  33. dgforreal says: Apr 6, 2011 3:07 PM

    When I first saw this I thought it said Judd Nelson.

  34. angrycorgi says: Apr 6, 2011 3:15 PM

    “As I said on this site two weeks ago, she’s going to give them one last chance at mediation before she slams one side or the other. IMHO, it’s the owners that get slammed because the NFL has been found to be a monopoly on several occasions in the past and you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. It’s called collateral estoppel. I suspect she called the recess to give both sides one more chance to go to mediation and she’ll give them a week or two to work it out.”

    If you are right, and they don’t work it out, then the NFL should get the hint. If they, as is, are considered a monopoly, then they must change the way they do business to prevent further legal reprisals. That means dissolving any bond between the teams and setting up the “NFL” as a separate entity that leases it’s name to teams in turn for yearly dues. They could still have standards/requirements for selling the “NFL” name and have some control over the product, but likely there would be no salary cap (or floor) and we’ll be in baseball-mode. There also could be no profit sharing and so 3-4 teams will probably put up pitiful products or be forced to fold altogether. Either way, congrats to the players. Greed once again screws up a good thing. And the fans lose once more.

  35. clayshair says: Apr 6, 2011 3:17 PM

    Judge Susan Nelson … wondered why the owners and players aren’t in mediation now instead.

    *******************

    These laws incent the players to exercise a free option.

    The players can sue under this sham decertification. If they win, they gain leverage. If they lose, they are no worse off than they were in mediation.

    Only a bunch of lawyers could be confused by this.

  36. airraid77 says: Apr 6, 2011 3:19 PM

    the owners ultimately hold the final card…..because the can just close the doors. Not lock em….but just walk away……18oo screaming athletes….without a job.

  37. voxveritass says: Apr 6, 2011 3:21 PM

    I can’t wait until all the commenters on PFT start ordering jerseys with the owners name on the back.

  38. endzonezombie says: Apr 6, 2011 3:26 PM

    “Good thing she isn’t Lazy Susan. That would leave the rest of us as Dumb Waiters”

    Or Dumb Writers.

  39. cmr123 says: Apr 6, 2011 3:27 PM

    Maybe, if there is no lock-out and no union then maybe the Owners should simply make the change they want such as 18 games and go with it and if the union comes back and wants to bargin simply let them strike and go with re-placements. Everyone acts like it didnt work but the players caved in a couple of weeks last time.

  40. buckeye2280 says: Apr 6, 2011 3:29 PM

    Lets say the Judges orders the lockout to end.

    The Owners will appeal, but in the mean time the owners then say fine due to the Supreme Court Ruling that allows them to act as 1 entity when it comes to betterment of the game they basically force a set of rules on the players. Which in turn would force the players to either reform as a union and go on strike or be forced into those rules.

    I don’t see the Supreme Court ruling against a draft, salary cap, shared revenue or things of that nature that benefit the health of all teams and growth overall for competative balance.

    And this would seem like the most likely outcome of any ruling that might force the league to end the lockout. Also, if the players then reform into a union it would then give more leverage to the owners that the decertification was nothing more then a sham to end the lockout.

  41. endzonezombie says: Apr 6, 2011 3:31 PM

    stealthjunk: are we to believe that a successful attorney is actually posting on a sports website during his busy day? Oh, wait…you have to pass the bar first before you can actually, you know, work as an attorney. .

  42. jamaltimore says: Apr 6, 2011 3:34 PM

    If the union can decertify and not really say it’s a union anymore until it becomes a union again why don’t the owners just draft a new agreement that prevents NFL Players from EVER FORMING A UNION AGAIN past 4/6/2011!

    Forget negotiations on a new CBA and say we are open for business players come get your checks minuse Dsmith and the band of idiots you call leadership! We’ll post openings on NFL. COM and look forward to seeing you on Interview/Draft Day in NYC for those of you with NO NFL experience and two years of college experience. We’ll have foll0w-up interviews in our respective facilities with those who already have some NFL experience.

  43. warhorse007 says: Apr 6, 2011 3:37 PM

    My thought: Lift the lockout for two weeks. Order the players/owners to face to face mediations.

    During the two week lifting of the lockout though, no free agents may be signed due to the unstable financial outlook.

    Teams with more money in their back pockets would have an unfair advantage over those who dont.

    However, during the lifting, players may be traded or the rights to players.

    After two weeks…..go back in front of Nelson with a progress report.

  44. warhorse007 says: Apr 6, 2011 3:39 PM

    @dgforreal

    You may have penned the frontrunning reference for our new judge. heh heh

    Lets call the owners/players negotiating reps:

    The Breakfast Club

  45. andyreidisfat says: Apr 6, 2011 3:41 PM

    “Geez, what is so hard to understand about this? Morons on the street like me understand, why can’t this judge?”

    Well you have proved to be that moron with this statement.

    Of course the decertification was a legal move. Duhhhh Losing ….

    Thats how the LAW works. They did that so they could get to court because the players believed the owners were not prepared to offer a fair deal (weather their beliefs were right or not, it is how they felt) They have every right to do what they are doing.

    That being said i can’t see why they can’t just split the pot 50-50 and both sides be happy. Add a rookie pay scale is also needed no matter how the players feel, its not fair to the fans that a team can be ruined for 5 years for 1 bad pick (its why i hate the nba and would approve of a lockout that gets rid of their system). Also the NFL should be paying full benefits for retired players period. Thats the way it should be. Everything else should stay the same. No 18 games, no more games in other countries, no stupid rules that go to far with fines. The nfl is the biggest sport in this country and teams are a license to print money. Why would you mess with that out of greed. By trying to keep making the game “bigger” your not doing anything but killing it.

  46. realitypolice says: Apr 6, 2011 3:42 PM

    2011to2020lions says:
    Apr 6, 2011 3:00 PM
    The Players walked away not the owners.
    ==================

    That’s true. When the owners:

    -Sat on their last proposal for over a week

    -Then dropped it on the table an hour before the deadline THEY imposed for expiration of the CBA

    -And when that proposal was incomplete and was vague on many of the key financial elements

    Yes, you’re right, that’s when the players walked away from the table.

  47. laeaglefan says: Apr 6, 2011 3:43 PM

    Can anyone reading or posting messages here honestly say that they’re rooting for the owners in this case? If the owners win this case and the lockout is deemed legal, we may not have NFL football in 2011…..or if we do, we’ll all be sweating it out waiting for the players to get back on the field in time to not miss any games. The way we as fans win is if the judge orders the lockout to end.

  48. blantoncollier says: Apr 6, 2011 3:44 PM

    Assuming Judge Nelson actually asked the question…Just curious what was the NFLPA’s answer?

    We arent in mediation because we took our ball and went home?

  49. pfmadden says: Apr 6, 2011 3:53 PM

    People do understand that this case isn’t, in actuality, the NFLPA* v. the NFL, right?

    This is a class action antitrust lawsuit. So if you are asking “who are the owners supposed to negotiate with if there is no union?” you’re missing a key part of the situation. The answer is “the class.” The players can be a “class” without a union. The players would be represented by the putative class counsel with the point being to reach a settlement of the class action suit, certifying a settlement class and moving on.

    The owners, of course, don’t want to do that. But to ignore the fact that players who are not in a union – like all other types of persons with common legal claims – can bind themselves together through the class action mechanism is a grave error.

    So please, when you form your opinion, whatever it is, don’t base it on your complete lack of understanding of the situation.

  50. 1972wasalongtimeago says: Apr 6, 2011 3:56 PM

    And in other news, the United States Government is going to shut down this weekend.

    And now, back to Maurice Jones-Drew’s knee.

  51. eagleswin says: Apr 6, 2011 4:01 PM

    voxveritass says:
    Apr 6, 2011 3:21 PM
    I can’t wait until all the commenters on PFT start ordering jerseys with the owners name on the back.

    ——————

    All the jerseys are in the team colors with the team logo and usually have the player’s number from the NFL team they play on.

    When’s the last time you ordered a shirt with a player’s name on it without it referencing the team he plays for?

    The owners are the team, therefore, everytime someone buys a jersey with the team colors/logo, you are representing the owners.

    You would not be able to market the player seperate from the team. The players sole marketability lies within his relationship to the team.

  52. buckeye2280 says: Apr 6, 2011 4:01 PM

    I am not cheering for the Owners or the Players. The players are just as much to blame as the owners are.

    The idea that the players are gonna blast away at the NFL system that allows Revenue sharing and competative balance is reprehensable and will be the biggest downfall of the NFL. The reason the NFL is where it is is because every team is playing by the same rules and expendatures. Any person with half a brain would not want this. Only people who live in NY want the baseball system. Why because only in NY can you basically buy your team and pay double what most teams can afford. See Yankee’s payroll vs every other small market team.

    If in the end NFL goes the baseball route.. I will be done with the NFL. I am not gonna waste money and time on a product where I know that my team can not compete for no other reason other then its not in NY, LA, Dallas, Boston, or Chicago.

  53. TIM says: Apr 6, 2011 4:02 PM

    The Judge asks why the two sides are not in mediation ????????
    The answer…
    Because the Union walked out of the talks (and went on STRIKE ! without even responding to the many good compromises the owners put on the table) and were never serious in the first place and they planned all along to go to court and get a Judge that was so stupid or so corrupt that the Judge would hand them more than they could get in fair mediation .
    Hopefully this Judge is nobody’s fool and will order the Union to get back in real talks with the owners.(and will realize the so called decertification was a sham and an insult to her intelligence !).

  54. nightman13 says: Apr 6, 2011 4:03 PM

    For all you idiots that soley blame the players for decertifying remember this simple fact. The owners had all the leverage and used it to negotiate in bad faith.

    That’s why the owners negotiated they’d get paid during the lockout so they could financially withstand a long lockout and force the players to take a bad CBA.

    The union decertified to give themselves leverage so they could get themselves back on a level playing field with the owners.

    So many of you say the players walked away from the table, but remember this. They walked away from a table that HAD 1 OF THE 32 OWNERS at it. How serious were those mediation sessions if ownership wasn’t even attending?

  55. demolition510 says: Apr 6, 2011 4:04 PM

    Excuse the ignorance…..but if they’re no longer a union is there a need for a CBA (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING agreement)???

  56. waitingguilty says: Apr 6, 2011 4:05 PM

    @ laeaglefan…

    I can say I am rooting for the owners. Actually I’m rooting for mediation and a settlement, but if it’s one side or the other I vote owners.

    I say this because the owners winning and the NFLPA getting the union back together and a CBA done probably preserves the game as we know it for the long term.

    The players winning may mean a quicker FA/trade period and guaranteed 2012 season, but at what cost?

    Then the draft, FA in general, and a multitude of other things may be attacked under the anti trust rule. Litigation will go on forever.

    I see the owners winning the Nelson case and/or on appeal as a way to get the league back to normal for a long time.

    And let’s be honest, if the lockout is upheld on appeal then the players will cave pretty fast.

  57. FinFan68 says: Apr 6, 2011 4:08 PM

    How, exactly, is the NFL still considered a monopoly with another regular football league operating within the U.S. jurisdiction? Arena football could be considered different because of the drastic differences in the game, but I can’t see how the UFL would be considered any different than the NFL game.

  58. dryheaveone says: Apr 6, 2011 4:08 PM

    so you mean to say. NO FOOWTBAWL THIS YEAR?…..lawdy, lawdy,…..WHAT’S WE GONNA DO?!?!

  59. dontcallmepete says: Apr 6, 2011 4:15 PM

    I don’t see the Supreme Court ruling against a draft, salary cap, shared revenue or things of that nature that benefit the health of all teams and growth overall for competative balance.

    ———————————————-
    The draft, salary cap et al is legal ONLY because it was bargained collectively. It’s why Maurice Clarette lost his case. It’s why the owners NEED the union. The lockout will be lifted because the case on the TV money showed that the lockout was planned no matter what. The owners lost on that and that case ruling will affect this one. A lockout is legal in many cases, just not in this one IMHO.

  60. commandercornpone says: Apr 6, 2011 4:25 PM

    but a sham decert is legal, judge?

  61. voxveritass says: Apr 6, 2011 4:58 PM

    eagleswin says:
    Apr 6, 2011 4:01 PM
    voxveritass says:
    Apr 6, 2011 3:21 PM
    I can’t wait until all the commenters on PFT start ordering jerseys with the owners name on the back.

    ——————

    All the jerseys are in the team colors with the team logo and usually have the player’s number from the NFL team they play on.

    When’s the last time you ordered a shirt with a player’s name on it without it referencing the team he plays for?

    The owners are the team, therefore, everytime someone buys a jersey with the team colors/logo, you are representing the owners.

    You would not be able to market the player seperate from the team. The players sole marketability lies within his relationship to the team.

    _______________________

    I don’t think head and shoulders believes they’re endorsing the Rooneys when Troy makes a commercial.
    The point lost on you is that the favorite player of a lot of commenters is the owners.
    While I see where you’re coming from, I believe you’re confusing who is the beneficiary of that sale (the owners) vs to whom the loyalty that earned the sale (players / coaches / team). For instance, do you think anyone ever bought a Clinton Portis jersey because they thought Dan Snyder was the bee’s knees or do you think it was in spite of Dan Snyder?

  62. pftequalsgreatjournalism says: Apr 6, 2011 5:12 PM

    stealthjunk says: Apr 6, 2011 2:50 PM

    As an attorney….

    —————————-

    Stealth,

    Are you a real attorney or did you get your JD from a Cracker Jack box like someone else we know?

    Agreed on the mediation hope…

  63. Deb says: Apr 6, 2011 5:26 PM

    @airraid77 …

    Of course! Why didn’t the owners think of that? They can just close the league permanently and stop doing business. Who needs the billions of dollars they make annually on professional football?

  64. airraid77 says: Apr 6, 2011 5:54 PM

    deb,
    you cant own an nfl unless you have made, and are a stable in the hundereds of millions….You think the owners are going to put money into a losing proposititon? clearly even the most liberal person can understand how stupid that sounds.

    you could inherit a billion dollars…5 minutes from this post, and the nfl wouldnt give you the time of day for even the worst franchise……and that is true for most everybody

    The owners wouldnt think twice about shutting down to save their money. and go make it somewhere else.

  65. Deb says: Apr 6, 2011 10:40 PM

    @airraid77 …

    Honey, there is a reason these guys are in this business. It’s profitable. Only a fool would think they’re really losing the lion’s share of profits to the players so they’re going to shut the whole thing down and go make their money somewhere else. I don’t know what else to say to that.

  66. airraid77 says: Apr 7, 2011 7:48 AM

    The owners didnt back out of this for no reason at all…..If you think they did, I dont know what to say to that……

  67. buckeye2280 says: Apr 7, 2011 10:39 AM

    @dontcallmepet

    you sir should go read the supreme court ruling the last time the NFL was there. They ruled against the NFL In that specific case but laid out a huge hole in stating that the NFL has a right to do some things when it comes to health of the league and balance.

  68. Deb says: Apr 7, 2011 12:15 PM

    @airraid77 …

    The owners backed out of the current CBA because they want a bigger piece of the revenue pie. You’ve heard of employees striking because they want more money? Well, the owners are striking because they want more money. It’s called greed. They’ve looked down the road and seen how high revenues are likely to climb and realized how much the players will earn and they don’t like that idea. Of course, they’ll always be earning much more than the players–both through the CBA and through their other revenue streams. But they want MORE.

    But the owners are not going to shut down the league and give up the billions they’re already bringing in just to get an extra billion.

  69. stetai says: Apr 12, 2011 1:04 PM

    If the players are smart they will fight to drop the salary cap and not worry abotu the season. they blew it in ’93 and watched MLB and NBA run away with way more money than NFL guys.

Leave a Reply

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