Skip to content

With new offer in hand, ball is in players’ court

108438_crop_340x234 Getty Images

On Monday, the NFL made a new CBA offer to the players, even though the players never responded to the last offer the NFL made.  Though no details regarding the new offer have emerged (yet), we’re hearing that it’s not believed to be significantly better than the offer made on March 11.

Nor should it be, frankly.  Money has been lost since March 11, and the league is now operating from a position of strength, given clear indications from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that the order lifting the lockout will soon be placed into the porcelain file.  Under the circumstances, the NFL would have been justified to make an offer worse than the offer that was made nearly 10 weeks ago.

Lawyer Michael Hausfeld, who filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of retired players and an incoming rookie who likely wouldn’t have been picked in a 100-round draft, tells ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio:  “The players are considering their proposal and formulating a response.  It’s not acceptable as is, but it’s a starting point.”

Hausfeld’s opinion is far, far less compelling than the opinion of the lawyers representing the current players.  Hausfeld and his clients have barged their way into these proceedings, and the current players and their lawyers welcomed them to the table presumably due to concerns that telling them to get lost and/or bent would alienate retired players generally.

Either way, the ball is in the player’s court, and how the players respond to the new offer will go a long way toward determining whether a deal can be reached in the short term.  In this regard, we’re told the NFL is particularly interested in seeing whether the players’ position departs from the recent public statements of NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith, who has spoken of “going to the mattresses” and more recently congratulated the league for “su[ing] to not play its game.”

So if the next thing we hear from Smith is that the players have been offered the second-worst deal in the history of sports, we’ll know that this thing is going nowhere.  And that, in time, the players will be forced to choose between taking one of the worst deals in the history of sports and not getting paid, indefinitely.

Permalink 83 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
83 Responses to “With new offer in hand, ball is in players’ court”
  1. jedicookie says: May 17, 2011 7:22 AM

    I hope DeSmith eats his hat.

  2. joetoronto says: May 17, 2011 7:27 AM

    Tell them the offer decreases by 10% per day.

    We’ll see how tough they really are.

  3. MichaelEdits says: May 17, 2011 7:28 AM

    When De is comprehensible, I usually wish he wasn’t. Best hat ever, but if I was a player, I’d sack the guy.

  4. jc1958cool says: May 17, 2011 7:29 AM

    tell the owners to shove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    take them back to court and let roger pinnochio sweat it!

  5. norfva says: May 17, 2011 7:29 AM

    The NFL has alway had the upper hand even when the lockout was lifted no matter how brief they still took the position of not following it. This is a total mess with no end in site. I will admit that this will probably not cause me to stop watching the games when they do start again. The only option I really have is that I can just stop buying NFL merchandise how much that will affect them I do not know but I feel as fans we need to take some kind of stand.

  6. bobbyhoying says: May 17, 2011 7:31 AM

    Every day this situation takes another step toward ending ugly. Maybe life without pro football won’t be so bad when September comes.

  7. skins359 says: May 17, 2011 7:31 AM

    Lol, De Smith will balk at the offer, make some absurd comment and continue to prepare for June 3rd. Remember this is WAR! Just go to Google images and type in “War Crimes,” yeah thats the type of stuff the NFLPA is dealing with.

  8. agentcharlescarmichael says: May 17, 2011 7:35 AM

    The worst deal in sports will still include the players to make their tons of million every year. Sounds so horrible for them, I’m going to think about how bad they have it all day, and then I’m going to cry them a river when i go to bed. D0uche bags.

  9. chatham10 says: May 17, 2011 7:35 AM

    I’m surprised by DeMaurice Smith when he is in front of the press as he looks and sounds angry. He needs a few lessons because if he is trying to imtimate or bully the NFL owners, he is going to lose that battle as well as the public relations battle.

  10. chapnastier says: May 17, 2011 7:36 AM

    Second offer made by the owners. That’s Owners – 2 Players – 0. Let’s hope Smith takes a step back and allows all the players to consider it.

  11. watters7 says: May 17, 2011 7:37 AM

    Lets face it, nothing will get done CBA wise until they reach the real “drop dead” date. (i.e. both the players and owners losing real money)
    The owners have’nt lost anything yet and the lockout is an excuse for players to not have to participate in OTA’s, etc.
    Neither side “stands” for anything but greed.

  12. billybats says: May 17, 2011 7:37 AM

    I think a previous poster on this website said it best: When I look at De Smith, now I finally understand what the term “asshat” means.

  13. scudbot says: May 17, 2011 7:38 AM

    So far, D. Smith has alienated paying fans, engineered the players into not being represented by a union and managed to eke out a career demotion for himself. Jewelers and car dealers all over the US want this guy gone.

  14. purpleman527 says: May 17, 2011 7:40 AM

    Here is my guess on the response from the players, and/or De Smith.

    “Go to hell”

  15. 2009kenny says: May 17, 2011 7:40 AM

    It will really be interesting to see their response. Thankfully, there is another day of mediation so their reponse is expected today. In addition, it was disappointing to hear the comments De Smith made after the ruling especially considering that at that point, the owners were already in the process of presenting a proposal which he would need to respond to. I don’t blame those who say he appears to lack any bargaining skills

  16. wallyhorse says: May 17, 2011 7:46 AM

    The ball is definitely in the players court on this.

    The players as well as Mr. Smith may not realize that the owners may be more hardcore on this than they otherwise were because of what’s going on in LA with the Dodgers right now (and especially since Jamie McCourt began an extremely bitter divorce proceeding from her husband Frank). I suspect the owners are as they are because there may be one if not more owners who also have to deal with a spouse who could pull what Jamie McCourt currently is unless they continue to live the exact lifestyle they currently live.

  17. kingmj4891 says: May 17, 2011 7:49 AM

    DeMaurice Smith will be even more of an idiot if he doesn’t start to take the league serious. Just get the deal done. Anyway it goes the players will still be making more money then the rest of us. Like the rest here I am sick of the rhetoric from DeSmith, he needs to do his job and get a deal done. The ball is in your court De do something with it this time.

  18. imarques82 says: May 17, 2011 7:54 AM

    I’ve been on the players side from day 1 and this has turned into a battle that they can’t win.

    It’s time to take the best deal possible and get back to football.

  19. drop703 says: May 17, 2011 7:59 AM

    If D.Smith is smart as he thinks he is…he should actually review this offer seriously and see if something can be done now instead of waiting until July to lose with the 8th circuit. If he doesnt, he’ll end up with egg on his face and probably be replaced. The momentum has shifted…you don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize that.

  20. Patriot42 says: May 17, 2011 8:00 AM

    All of this rhetoric is just back ground noise to more and more fans as each day goes by. I can only speak for my self but I can live without football, it won’t be easy but as each day seeing both sides of this issue state their position I am really tuning them out.

  21. rpiotr01 says: May 17, 2011 8:05 AM

    How about the players start by actually issuing, ya know, a counter offer. Insulting the other party doesn’t count as a counter offer either. They will need to read the league’s offer, see what they can live with, find what they can’t live with, and make an alternative proposal for those points.

    It’s hard work! It’s much easier to insult, spin and sue but fortunately that time seems to be coming to an end.

  22. tmaleman says: May 17, 2011 8:08 AM

    I am wondering how the NFL has any leverage – they need the CBA more than the players because without one, they are breaking anti-trust law.

    Imagine, you graduated college with honors, and you were dreaming of practicing law at a top firm in New York, but instead, a firm in Nashville “drafted” you because it was their “pick.”

    I don’t think the players want to abolish the draft and do all the things Goodell is slandering them with, it’s simply a reminder that the owners need the CBA a lot more than the players do.

    Let the thumbs down fly!

  23. brutus9448 says: May 17, 2011 8:09 AM

    The players know there is always king soopers.

  24. hawkeye6 says: May 17, 2011 8:11 AM

    I believe this deal will be similar, if not the same as the first deal – and the owners are using it as posturing for all the legal action occurring. The owners are going to try and make themselves seem as if they’re trying to come to an agreement, when in reality they’re not willing to move…much.

  25. rocketdogsports says: May 17, 2011 8:11 AM

    Until now, I have tilted toward the optimistic in terms of the league and the players resolving their differences in time to begin the season on time and without delay. Now, I am not so sure that is the case.

    The offer sent to the players and their acceptance, in whole or as a validated starting point over the next few days will be the deterninining factor in the tone and length of all discussions and any possible settlement.

    Let’s all hope for calmer and cooler heads to prevail as the season is now in real jeapordy.

  26. bluepike says: May 17, 2011 8:14 AM

    Once again, DeMaurice Smith absolutely refuses to “take the high road”. Instead, he chooses to once more bite of his nose to spite his his face.

    Now, looking down the abyss, De Smith decides to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It should now be very obvious to the players that they have hired the wrong guy. Come on players, get rid of this little runt with the Napoleon complex and get a NEGOTIATOR in there and get a fair deal. Please guys – no more LITIGATORS! The longer you wait – the worse it will get. Please negotiate now.

  27. chargersz says: May 17, 2011 8:14 AM

    Ultimately it is time for the players to take the matter in their own hands. I would guess the majority of them did not plan for a long term lockout (monetarily) and their “chief” Smith is getting them nowhere. Time for the players to fire this clown and realize that they need to take whatever the league will give them.

  28. eagles83 says: May 17, 2011 8:17 AM

    Hate De Smith.

    You would think now all that is left is to hammer out a deal and to not stop until it’s reached…I get the feeling that Smith has another strategy….

  29. commoncents says: May 17, 2011 8:18 AM

    Fire De Smith and negotiate PA!! The world now knows the players are the ones holding football up. Come on Flor-Mo, where’s your usual biased angle????

  30. blackdb says: May 17, 2011 8:23 AM

    If the players choose not to counter offer it should be clear to everyone that De Smith has an agenda of his own and does not have the players or fans best interest at heart.

  31. riverhorsey says: May 17, 2011 8:25 AM

    can’t believe more of the details aren’t avail

  32. readimgram1 says: May 17, 2011 8:39 AM

    This is the time for the players to sit down and try to cut a deal while they still have at least a little bit of leverage. The 8th circuit has tipped their hand and the players will most likely lose the appeal.

    If the players have anyone other then this idiot smith advising them then they should know that now is the time.

    Negotiate, propose a counter offer and keep talking till this gets done. Do your best to get it done before the appeal because once you lose that the deal will start getting worse not better.

  33. pleasantsurpriselefty says: May 17, 2011 8:41 AM

    We already know how intransigent and self-serving Duh-Maurice Smith is, now we need to know how long it’s going to take the players to figure out that with him steering the ship it’s going nowhere and fast. Can the guy, get a real person (not a lawyer) and the deal gets done plain and simple!

  34. therealsmiley says: May 17, 2011 8:42 AM

    Advantage owners. Players should take the offer and make changes as a counter offer. Don’t simply decline the offer as it will serve no purpose and we’ll start siding with the owners. Hail!

  35. bronco1st says: May 17, 2011 8:44 AM

    Let the wallow a rot in their own mess…I could care. My only desire at this point is to see both sides suffer. Wouldn’t it be great to see these two entities locked in a death grip for the next year or two and a new entity, say an improved UFL comes along and steals the pie.

  36. joesomeone says: May 17, 2011 8:50 AM

    I like the picture

    HELD BY THE BALLS!!!

  37. realitypolice says: May 17, 2011 8:53 AM

    I’ve said all along that this is a dispute between two groups of businessmen trying to gain leverage in a negotiation.

    The owners employed a lockout to attempt to gain leverage, the players employed litigation towards the same goal.

    I didn’t begrudge either of them their strategies- as distasteful as both seemed, I understood why they were doing it.

    Well, the results are in. The players strategy backfired on them. By making the stay permanent, the 8th circuit is telling both sides which they feel would win on the merits.

    Only a fool would think that the oral arguments on June 3rd would change the judges minds.

    The players, thusly, would be foolish to wait until then to get serious about compromise. Each day that passes, each successive ruling that goes against them, weakens their position.

    If you think the league is leaning on them now, wait until you see what happens if the 8th Circuit reverses Judge Nelson sometime in mid-June.

    As I have also said before, the players made a huge error in judgement when the chose Smith over Troy Vincent to head the NFLPA.

    While no doubt every trade organization or labor union needs a lawyer in it somewhere to protect their legal rights, having a lawyer who is a litigator in charge is always bad news.

  38. mattyjp23 says: May 17, 2011 8:56 AM

    This is why the players should not have picked a litigator to lead them. The man was trained to keep fights going and not to back down ever. They need a negotiator, not a litigator.

  39. dryzzt23 says: May 17, 2011 8:57 AM

    Is it me or does D Smith look like a photo negative of Udo Dirkschneider, lead singer of the heavy metal band Accept?

  40. whodeykid58 says: May 17, 2011 8:59 AM

    DeSmith = DeBag

  41. hail2tharedskins says: May 17, 2011 9:02 AM

    tmaleman says: May 17, 2011 8:08 AM

    I am wondering how the NFL has any leverage – they need the CBA more than the players because without one, they are breaking anti-trust law.

    ———————————————-

    That’s why the lockout and this ruling that keeps it in place is the crucial leverage point. Not only does it increase the league’s leverage in negotiations as the players won’t be getting paid, as long as the players are locked out – there also are no anti-trust laws being broken since the teams are not participating in any activities regarding players and therefore are not engaging any of the activities that players are are alleging are illegal in court. Do you understand now how the NFL has the leverage as long as the lockout continues? And to be clear, the league has immunity for past actions that occurred under the terms of the CBA, so until the lockout is lifted, the league has no exposure in anti-trust court.

  42. thevikes85 says: May 17, 2011 9:02 AM

    I’m surprised they can hold the ball,they usually bite the hand that feeds them.I really am close to just giving up on this sport.I am sure i’m not alone in feeling that way.

  43. realitypolice says: May 17, 2011 9:02 AM

    dryzzt23 says:
    May 17, 2011 8:57 AM
    Is it me or does D Smith look like a photo negative of Udo Dirkschneider, lead singer of the heavy metal band Accept?
    =======================

    Dunno. In that picture, he looks kind of like two tennis balls in someone’s hand.

  44. pacstud says: May 17, 2011 9:05 AM

    Someone has Kermit’s undivided attention in that pic

  45. dewiseman says: May 17, 2011 9:05 AM

    Desmith has no choice but to resort to the negative rhetoric, and play the part of a kamikaze pilot. His only chance of saving himself at this point is to convince the owners that he’ll ruin the season if he doesn’t get what he wants. You should expect that his public statements will become more bizarre. Make no mistake. He’s a lawyer with a lawyer’s mentality. He doesn’t care about the players or the sport. He cares only about how he comes out in this. And right now it’s not looking too good. He’s a desperate man.

  46. warmachine2112 says: May 17, 2011 9:10 AM

    While I know that we, the fans, don’t have all the details, this would appear to be a positive for the League/Owners. They’ve made offers and, while the details aren’t known, a framework has been talked about.

    On the other side, the Players have made no publicly discussed counter-offers, only rejections. If this is the case, then their representative is, frankly, the wrong man for the job. In CBA, the B is for Bargaining.

    If the Players have made counter-offers, then it seems odd that their representatives have not so much as mentioned this to the public, since this would be, if nothing else, positive publicity. This also hints that the Representative is the wrong man for the job.

    This situation was headed for litigation the moment Smith got the job.

    “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite” (“Every country has the government it deserves”). Joseph de Maistre, 1811.

  47. ashburninsider says: May 17, 2011 9:11 AM

    De smith reminds me of former DC mayor Marion Barry!

  48. myeaglescantwin says: May 17, 2011 9:18 AM

    F this BS,. i hope they hold out the entire season if the NFL wants to low ball the players.

    NO ONE would watch scabs take the field. The NFL makes money off of talent & if theres none on the field there are no asses in seats.

    I just wish some of these players actually had relief funds set up so they weren’t struggling and could afford to have the owners take a HUGE financial hit.

    The players risk their physical well being, they should hold out as long as they can to get exactly what they want.

  49. skoobyfl says: May 17, 2011 9:29 AM

    The owners are bidding against themselves, so any improvement now to the players is a gift.

  50. touchdownroddywhite says: May 17, 2011 9:33 AM

    I already called the deal yesterday – Slightly more money, 1 year of tabling the 18 game season, and hgh testing.

    Not sure why I’m not considered a credible source yet, but you shall all see!

    (I keed, I keed; it is a very likely offer though)

  51. realitypolice says: May 17, 2011 9:37 AM

    pacstud says:
    May 17, 2011 9:05 AM
    Someone has Kermit’s undivided attention in that pic
    ====================

    Post of the day.

  52. thedudesnotin says: May 17, 2011 9:37 AM

    Love the picture PFT.

  53. thedudesnotin says: May 17, 2011 9:39 AM

    dryzzt23 says:
    May 17, 2011 8:57 AM
    Is it me or does D Smith look like a photo negative of Udo Dirkschneider, lead singer of the heavy metal band Accept?

    ———————————————————
    Hmmmm…does he have his “Balls to the Wall” man?

  54. preludetosmack says: May 17, 2011 9:44 AM

    The reason the NFLPA has never countered back to any of the league’s offers is that they were fearful that the league would accept the counter.

    The NFLPA (DeSmith) hasn’t WANTED to do a deal prior to now. They had full faith that they would come out ahead via litigation. This goes back to prior to the lockout, prior to uncapped season, prior to the lockout insurance. This goes back to chosing DeSmith as the executive director.

    DeSmith was hired to serve a single purpose, litigate the best-case scenario for the players. He wasn’t employed to negotiate an extension or a new CBA, he and the players decided to go to the courts before the owners pulled the plug.

    Everything that has transpired since then has been a reaction to that fact.

    Hopefully, now that the owners have basically won the lockout battle in court (and don’t be surprised if the owners appeal any ruling on the lockout insurance case to the same 8th circuit) it’s time for the NFLPA and DeSmith to realize that they have failed the litigation strategy.

    They have no leverage. Yes, the leagues needs a CBA more than the players, but the players need a season more than the owners.

    I’m as anti-union as one can be, so I’ve always sided with the owners, but as the owners are the ones who have continued to make concessions from their initial offer, and continued to make proposals, all while the players have turned a blind-eye, I’m confused how anyone can side with the money-grubbing players.

    Whether they agree with the premise or not, the fact that the owners were willing to opt-out and walk away from the previous deal should be proof enough that they will not accept a new deal that is more lop-sided towards the players (which is all that the players have said they will accept). The players might as well have asked for 100% of the revenue, they’ve never negotiated with any good faith. It’s all been pointing to the litigation.

    The well is dry, where are the players?

  55. harmcityhomer says: May 17, 2011 9:47 AM

    Owner fanbois are funny.

    I just want football. It does not have to be CBA fotball to satisfy me, and if I was a player, I would not be forced into accepting a bad deal because of a lockout.

    The game is not a game to the players or owners. It is a job and a buisiness. For fans it is a tv show or theater.

  56. rabidbillsfan says: May 17, 2011 9:56 AM

    If you plan on using “Anti-trust Laws” in your post, feel free to cut your hands off. You have no idea what your talking about! The NFL, and some “Law Firm in Tennesee” are two COMPLETLY diffrent animals. The NFL uses the draft to create competetive balance, as well as FA. The draft has always been included into CBA’s so both parties are aware of it. It’s not just something the owners are trying to pull over on the players. Also, why do the owners NEED the CBA? They will be losing money, but they will still survive. The players NEED the CBA, when that first game check doesn’t come, lets see how many “for sale” signs go up on houses, cars, and boats. Craigslist will be flooded with jewelry and TV’s. Owners can generate revenue without the players, not vice versa. If Brady wins his case, it will be 10x worse. All the “non-superstar” athletes will probaly be making between 100k-500k per year while the others are bringing in 30-70 mil per year. So players, use this site as a tool. We may wear your jerseys, but I sure as heck don’t have your back, because you clearly don’t have mine.

  57. whitemike55 says: May 17, 2011 10:04 AM

    How hard is this proccess?

    1. Owners make offer
    2. Players Reject.
    3. Owners make 2nd offer (just happened)
    4. Players come back with proposal in between what they want and owners 2nd offer.
    5. Oweners counter.
    6. Players Agree.

    Both parties meet somewhere in the middle (Closer to owners b.c oweners now have leverage). IF Players continue to wait in the hopes the judges lift the lockout (Which doesnt sound promising) then the owners will have ALL the leverage.

    If the players think us Fans are in total agreement with them and the owners are locking them out, they better get real, b/c thats not the case. We just want FOOTBALL!!!

  58. thefiesty1 says: May 17, 2011 10:11 AM

    Have his hat handed to him and show him the door. Housman needs to go with him. They are not now or ever have been acting appropriately in support of their players. Get ‘em out of there!

  59. realitypolice says: May 17, 2011 10:11 AM

    tmaleman says:
    May 17, 2011 8:08 AM

    Imagine, you graduated college with honors, and you were dreaming of practicing law at a top firm in New York, but instead, a firm in Nashville “drafted” you because it was their “pick.”
    ==============================

    If your dream from the time you were a child was to play in a league that has held a draft to disperse it players since long before you were born, do you have a reasonable expectation to NOT be subjected to that draft when your turn comes?

    With certain professions, limited choices come with the territory. Is it unfair that to be a successful actor you have to live in NY or LA? Is it unfair that to be a congressman you have to live in DC?

    I get your argument about anti-trust law and that the League absolutely needs a CBA to exist legally. But that doesn’t mean they have no leverage. They are still writing the checks.

    Lastly, that lawyer you talk about who got drafted to Nashville, if the legal profession had a CBA similar to the NFL’s, he would be very highly compensated to live in a city with a very low cost of living compared to NY and after putting in 5 years there, if he is successful, he can leave and move to NY to fulfill his dream.

    We should all be so put upon.

  60. chapnastier says: May 17, 2011 10:12 AM

    @ myeaglescantwin

    I’ve used this with several people since this all started who make the same DeMo (retarded) argument as you just did. Can you name me all of your week 1 starters from a year ago? If by some miracle you can that, try the previous year and so on and so on. The point is, players come and go, the teams, the league and the sport, well that lasts forever.

  61. stixzidinia says: May 17, 2011 10:16 AM

    It’s so amusing how little understanding the pro-owner crowd actually has of the economics of the game……kinda like how they’ve been brainwashed to believe unions are at fault for the economic situation in this country (we all know the Fox News crowd are the pro-owner people on this site). A very small %-age of NFL players have multi-million dollar contracts. And many of them will be hobbled for life after football with a piss poor post-career benefits plan, not that any of you care about that so long as you get to have your precious football on Sundays. It’s very much like how you vote for conservative candidates who want to de-regulate everything from banks to the EPA…….because, hey, as long as it’s not in YOUR back yard.

    And the really funny thing is that once this is over you hypocrites will go right back to rooting for these players when they’re on the field. But guys like me will be right there to pop you in the mouth and remind you of all the anti-player nonsense you spewed. You people do not get to enjoy football wins anymore. Guys like me won’t let you. You’ve lost that privilege. And that’s all it ever was….a privilege. It was never your “right” to have pro football.

  62. whatswiththehate says: May 17, 2011 10:16 AM

    Hmmm…it’s good to see Mike has taken off his “I’m on neither side” BS when he has had Goodell on PFT like 15 hundred times and I’ve yet to see DeShawn on here.

    Corporate Media looking out for those with the deep pockets. Why am I not surprised.

    Stop your lying Mike, you know who you’ve been backing from day one. Your jealousy of the athletes and their money has not gone unnoticed by this fan.

  63. mhs8031 says: May 17, 2011 10:18 AM

    I am sure the players tolerated Smith when it appeared that his lies and antics were working. But the song is over and he is still dancing. Rather sad, really.

    Fire the moron and swallow your pride. Killing the cash cow for a few steaks was a dumb idea anyway.

  64. southmo says: May 17, 2011 10:22 AM

    If the players come back with a real counter-offer, instead of sticking with the self-destruct strategy in the courts, I think a LOT of us would be grateful.

  65. nolarules says: May 17, 2011 10:25 AM

    Just keeping score here:

    Owners have now offered 2 proposals

    Players have offered nothing but name calling and mud slinging

    And these players want the fans to believe they are being the grown ups in the room. Laughable.

  66. tmaleman says: May 17, 2011 10:29 AM

    Lastly, that lawyer you talk about who got drafted to Nashville, if the legal profession had a CBA similar to the NFL’s, he would be very highly compensated to live in a city with a very low cost of living compared to NY and after putting in 5 years there, if he is successful, he can leave and move to NY to fulfill his dream.

    ————————————————-

    I understand your point, but it cuts to the whole reason i commented – the owners backed out of the CBA, so there isn’t one. Now, are the owners really going to use replacement players, or should they just offer to go back to the 2010 CBA’s terms? I think, as football fans, 2010 worked pretty well, and we’d all love to go back (to the future!)

  67. qj1984 says: May 17, 2011 10:32 AM

    @tmaleman

    I don’t disagree that the owners need a CBA but I dont think they need it any more or less than the players. Without the CBA there is no cap on how much a team can spend but there is also no minimum amount. So, if a team wants to spend 20 million dollars in player payroll for an entire season, they can. Having 32 teams spending the exact same minimum, benefits the players because it increases player salaries.

    There is also the fact of the league minimum salary. Right now the minimum a player with a roster spot can make is like 250k, might be more. So, if you make your teams roster your going to make at least that. Without the minimum salary, that the CBA brings, the teams could pay players the federal minimum wage and be totally in the right.

    No CBA would probably benefit the top 2% of players. But for the other 98% its horrible idea. Because it takes away so much. And I am not just talking about the money. Their health coverage, retirement pension, etc.

  68. drewhinote says: May 17, 2011 10:34 AM

    If the NFLPA* does not at least make a rebuttal to the offer on the table, a vote should go out to all the players, and DeMaurice Smith should be voted out.

  69. 305phinphan says: May 17, 2011 10:39 AM

    If Gene Upshaw was still alive (God rest his soul) There would already be a new CBA in place.

  70. southmo says: May 17, 2011 10:52 AM

    Hey Stix…. please. I realize you and others have a political axe to grind, what with references to unions, the national economic situation, Fox News, and the typical derisive name-calling of people you disagree with, but wow. LOL

    I mean, what? Since the average NFL salary is only 900 thousand a year, and only a “small percentage” make multi-million dollar salaries, is that supposed to make everyone understand and sympathize with the anti-trust suits that are positioned to destroy the economic balance and integrity of the NFL game?

    This sport is an entertainment sport. That’s where the money comes from and like it or not… fans matter.

    What you and the players need to realize is this: It may not be the fans “right” to watch NFL games, but without us, there would be any. We’re free to like whatever we want to like, and to gripe whenever we want to gripe because we paid for this product.

    Using your own logic, it’s also not the players “right” to get paid even that small sum of 900 grand. They can always go to work in the real world if they want, or play for the UFL and complain about us fans all they want.

    And the NFL’s “piss-poor post career benefits plan” was also something the owners offered to improve substantially in the “worst offer in sports history.” So quit whining about it, if you’re not willing to negotiate a better deal.

    Get off the high horse before the 8th Circuit knocks it over.

  71. footballfan says: May 17, 2011 10:53 AM

    I really believe that the lockout could not have happened at a worse time. With the economy still in the tank and not looking to get better anytime soon most people are not too happy to see millionaires and billionaires fighting. I know I am not going to be spending any of my hard earned money on tickets to a Colts game this year or any other year for a long time.

    There were over 20 blacked out games last year and I am betting it will get worse before it gets better.

  72. mensamember says: May 17, 2011 10:55 AM

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Fire-Demaurice-Smith/175436575846900

    Like this page to get rid of Demaurice.

  73. endzonezombie says: May 17, 2011 10:56 AM

    It is precisely because of sites like this that it is so difficult to get a CBA done privately. This site second guesses everyone and everything. If Gene Upshaw was alive, he might be looking for some necks to break at PFT.

  74. southmo says: May 17, 2011 10:57 AM

    I’ve been on the owners side most of the time, but truthfully, if the players came back with a counter-offer, and really started negotiating, I’d be much more sympathetic to them.

    (just hoping some lawyer who cares about public relations reads this)

  75. preludetosmack says: May 17, 2011 10:58 AM

    @stixzidinia

    You said, ” very small %-age of NFL players have multi-million dollar contracts.”

    That is false. The AVERAGE salary of an NFL player is $3.4MILLION. The MINIMUM annual salary is up to $435,000.

    I’m sorry that I do not feel bad for those making $435k (also known as the evil rich folk by Obama).

    Also, you said “And many of them will be hobbled for life after football with a piss poor post-career benefits plan”

    The average NFL career is 3.5 years. The players who play 3.5years or less are the ones making the $435k minimum salaries, and they are NOT the players who are hobbled for life.

    The players who are hobbled for life are 1) Players from past eras of football during which the game was much MUCH more physical, 2) players who lasted much longer in their careers and were making MUCH higher than minimum salaries, and 3) the retired players that the NFLPA is not trying to increase compensation for.

    The OWNERS are the ones who have tried to divert revenue to the retired players, the PLAYERS are trying to divert revenue to themselves.

    BTW, that 3.5 seasons the end-of-the-bench scrub makes at the league minimum salary is $1.5Million, or roughly 50 YEARS of the median salary for an American HOUSEHOLD.

    Boo-freakin-hoo.

  76. hail2tharedskins says: May 17, 2011 11:03 AM

    stixzidinia says: May 17, 2011 10:16 AM

    … A very small %-age of NFL players have multi-million dollar contracts.

    ————————————————-

    I do not know what you consider a very small percentage. But just shy of 50% of NFL player contracts are multi-million dollar contracts. For the purpose of this, I defined a multi-million dollar contract as one that averages more $1mil per year over the life of the contract. The percentage would be even higher if I included a 4 year contract worth $3mil, which technically is a mutli-million dollar contract but since it averages less than a mil I left it out. Now if your point is that not all NFL contacts are multi-million dollar contracts, then you would be correct but to suggest that only a small percentage are is completely false unless you and have a different definition of “small”, I would define small percentage in the 10% range, not 40% range.

  77. preludetosmack says: May 17, 2011 11:07 AM

    Forgot to mention, the average salary multiplied by the average career is $11.9Million… roughly 380years of working for the median salary of an American household.

  78. hail2tharedskins says: May 17, 2011 11:09 AM

    preludetosmack,

    I have to point out that the average NFL salary is much lower than $3.4 million. I don’t have the exact number, but it is closer $2 million and I believe it is a little less than $2 million.

  79. olcap says: May 17, 2011 11:34 AM

    I now absolutely DETEST the NFL and its bought-and-paid-for “judges”, who are nothing more than prostitutes.

  80. preludetosmack says: May 17, 2011 11:46 AM

    @hail2tharedskins

    Sorry, you are correct (wish I could edit posts on here). I misread my source documentation… $3.4Mil figure was the average salary of all players in 2007 multiplied by the 3.5 year average career length.

    For the reason I already mentioned above (the players who play only 3.5seasons do not make the average salary, but rather minimum salaries) it was a lame figure.

    The average player salary for 2010 was between $1.8 and 2.1M (since 2010 was uncapped, some of the accounting rules were different so it’s hard to say what would have counted for which year if it was a standard season).

    In either case, the minimum listed is also the average of minimum salaries (which varies by # of years experience) that an incoming rookie in 2010 would earn over their first 4 seasons.

    And since that calculation was correct, and it would take a normal mere-mortal (ie: non-football player) 50 years of work to earn that same income… shouldn’t we expect retired football players to be banged up?

    They’ve earned the income the rest of us will need to toil until we’re 68years old to accumulate… by that time we’ll be banged up too.

  81. preludetosmack says: May 17, 2011 11:48 AM

    @olcap

    Did you previously absolutely DETEST the NFLPA and its bought-and-paid-for “judges”, who are nothing more than prostitutes.

    Susan Nelson and David Doty are as much union-sponsored sellouts as the 8th circuit is league-sponsored.

    Actually, since the 8th circuit panel is 1/3 liberal, it has more union support than Nelson & Doty combined.

  82. pizzon says: May 17, 2011 1:25 PM

    I dont see where the owners have an upper hand here just because the lockout was continued that really means very little. its business as usual and IMO if the players choose not to accept the owners miniscual offer then I am finr with them sitting out because I wont watch replacement players. the last time they had replacement players it was a joke to watch. lets not forget the 4 billion dollares that will be put into escrow by the other judge so the owners really dont have the upper hand they will bebasically in the same financial boat as the players. so it would be in the owners best interest to make an owner that is acceptable to the union.

  83. qj1984 says: May 17, 2011 7:27 PM

    @pizzon

    The players will eventually become desperate. That 4 billion probably wont be touched until the NFL has exhausted every appeal that they can and that can take years. So, its not an immediate source of income for the players. Meanwhile, all of these guys have bills to take care of just like you and me. They’ve got kids to feed and some of them are covering their own health cost of football injuries. And any one who has ever been seriously hurt or ill can tell you medical expenses can become expensive fast.

    Not all of them have a millions of dollars to sustain their lives without football paychecks coming in because not all of them make that type of money or were smart enough to save for the lockout. The owners have more money and many of them have other sources of income, they can survive the lockout alot longer than the players can just based on income alone. If this lockout drags into next year, many NFL players will filing bankruptcy or just flat out struggling to make ends meet. And the poorest NFL owner, the Rooney’s I believe, wont even be breaking a financial sweat.

Leave a Reply

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