Skip to content

Leverage game could include individual lawsuits

GETTY_N_011311_JudgeCourtLawGavel Getty Images

Last month, agent Peter Schaffer joined PFT Live to discuss various issues relating to the labor dispute.  Among other things, he addressed the possibility of players filing individual lawsuits for breach of contract, an intriguing possibility given that, apart from the broader labor deal, each player has an individual contract for employment.

Schaffer recently reiterated the possibility to Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports.  “It’s one of the arrows in our quiver, and it’s a large one,” Schaffer said.  “We hope that it doesn’t come to that point. We hope that cooler heads prevail, that the two sides find a resolution, and that at the end of the day people negotiating the deal will put the interests of the game ahead of their own.  But yes, it’s a possibility.”

Though the NFLPA* has yet to decide to pursue what would amount to hundreds if not more than 1,000 lawsuits being filed through the United States, it could be the next stop on the litigation express, if the Eighth Circuit allows the lockout to stand.  And, as anyone who watched today’s PFT Live knows, our primary concern is that, once the effort to lift the lockout fizzles, NFLPA* leadership will look for leverage via alternative litigation leverage in lieu of negotiating a new labor deal.

The good news is that Silver, a good friend of ours who is among the group of writers perceived as being pro-player in this fight (others have been far more obvious in their anti-owner, pro-player bias), genuinely believes that the players realize the value of negotiation.  “Rest assured that neither the rank and file nor the leaders on the players’ side, including NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, are panicking in the wake of Monday’s opinion,” Silver writes.  “The smart move would be to stay calm, counter the owners’ most recent offer and attempt to negotiate a compromise that results in a new, multiyear CBA and leaves both sides feeling reasonably good about the outcome. . . .  Based on my conversations with key figures on both sides of the conflict, I believe that’s ultimately what will happen, despite the posturing from each camp.”

We hope he’s right.  For now, it’s hard not to conclude that the NFLPA* will continue to resist meaningful negotiations until they acquire leverage.  If they can’t acquire leverage via the effort to lift the lockout, the next step — whether it’s individual lawsuits or something else — could take enough time to jeopardize part, or all, of the 2011 season.

Permalink 93 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
93 Responses to “Leverage game could include individual lawsuits”
  1. moggy6actual says: May 18, 2011 2:35 PM

    If the players resort to filing individual lawsuits, the owners should respond in kind whenever a player holds out.

  2. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 18, 2011 2:37 PM

    “The good news is that Silver, a good friend of ours who is among the group of writers perceived as being pro-player in this fight (others have been far more obvious in their anti-owner, pro-player bias),”

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

    LMAO! by “others” you certainly are referring to yourself.

  3. waitingguilty says: May 18, 2011 2:38 PM

    The players want to be viewed as partners…partners do not nuke the entire enterprise to get leverage do they?

  4. billybats says: May 18, 2011 2:38 PM

    “others have been far more obvious in their anti-owner, pro-player bias”

    This is a good summary of your bias on this issue thus far, though I must say that your recent stories on De Smith show at least an attempt at objectivity, which to that point had been missing from this website for some time.

  5. nfl25/ownerplant says: May 18, 2011 2:41 PM

    The owners want football to be the best sport in America. Some player backers don’t agree with this statement. I am sure u understand that the owners bought the team for one reason, to make $$. U also have to understand that the owners make more $$ when more people watch the sport. So u should understand that the owners and most of us that back the owners DO have something in common. The owners just want $$, there is nothing wrong with that. I could care less if the owners pay their kids 5 mill a month to play video games. They want to make the sport the best so that they make more money. There for I back the owners.

    The players want to get paid and don’t care if the sport is the best and why should they. They may like playing the game, but they do it to get paid and don’t worry about the future of the game. I am not saying they are doing anything wrong. They don’t plan on buying a team when they retire, so why would they care. They want to get as much as they can over the next 3-8 years. I could care less if the players get 20 mil a year, as long as it is not at the expense of the game of football. I cant know for sure who is right in this situation because I am not inside the situation. But I do believe that the owners have a right to say they want to redoe the deal they made a few years ago. Just as I would say the players have that right. This is why I side with the owners. I am open to someone who has a good argument of why I should side wit the players. Not tryin to b a di$k but I haven’t heard a good argument for the players side

  6. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 2:42 PM

    And, as anyone who watched today’s PFT Live knows, our primary concern is that, once the effort to lift the lockout fizzles, NFLPA* leadership will look for leverage via alternative litigation leverage in lieu of negotiating a new labor deal.

    The owners have leverage- the lockout.

    Why are you CONCERNED over the prospect of the players also having leverage?

    Now here come a bunch of “just get a deal done” posts.

    Gosh, why didn’t anyone else think of that? All these complicated issues out there, all these other ramifications to deal with, and all someone had to do all along was to “just get a deal done”? Well, that’s a relief.

    OK — you get everyone in that room, and tell these two sides in heavy conflict over billions of dollars and life-altering health issues, that goshdarnit, they just need to work it out.

  7. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 18, 2011 2:44 PM

    DEmo Smith is willing to drag this out as long as he can so he can make the most money. By doing that though, he is dragging this out into training camp and into the season which will start costing players their paychecks and bonuses.

    Sounds like a great leader those idiotic players elected.

    DEmo doesn’t want to negotiate unless he has leverage. But he isn’t gonna have leverage unless he continues to sue on multiple issues which will take months to resolve. The guy is just doing a huge disservice to these players and they don’t even realize it.

    THAT is why whenever the players get shafted in the new argreement I will not feel sorry for them one bit. They get everything coming to them for being ignorant, greedy, and too damn stupid to admit they elected the wrong person and fire him

  8. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 18, 2011 2:46 PM

    @tommyf15

    Thanks for your comment Chester Pitts

  9. 2009kenny says: May 18, 2011 2:46 PM

    silver is strongly pro players, no other way to put it

  10. purpleman527 says: May 18, 2011 2:46 PM

    You mean, the players and De Smith might SUE in the courts rather than play the games?

    I am shocked.

    Completely shocked.

    (Sarcasim)

  11. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 2:48 PM

    Enough already. I have just had enough. Most of the people that post here are pro-owner which translates into anti-player. The players are contractual partners with the owners, but most posters insist on calling them workers and employees. First of all, this is entertainment, plain and simple. It is not ONLY a business. You are unwilling to accept that many of the rules that allow pro football to be what it is for everyone are negotiated rules. The owners draft players, conduct free-agency, have salary caps etc. because the NFLPA agrees to it. In return, the players get different forms of compensation. Whether most of you here either don’t understand that, don’t agree with it or just don’t believe it, it is a negotiated partnership. It has to be to allow some of the rules to exist. This is not Walmart, Microsoft or the local welding shop. But enough is enough, you win.

    There is no more players union. Keep it that way. From this day forward, they are all workers. When they graduate or leave college, they can apply for a job wherever they want, whenever they want. That’s what every other worker has the right to do. The better run, more organized teams can “recruit” the players they want. That’s how the better companies in America do it. There will be no need for a rookie salary plan because there will not be a draft. Sign a five or six year contract and when that’s over, a player can go apply for work with another team or two or three. He should be able to choose from the offer that best suites him, his family and his personal and professional goals. Those contracts will include salary, bonuses, health care, retirement, whatever he can get. That’s what every other worker has the right to do. No more player trades. IBM does not and can not trade workers with Symantec. Just release him. He is free to go to work for someone else. If owners don’t meet the terms of the contracts, the players can just leave and apply elsewhere. If the players don’t meet expectations, just fire him. That’s what happens in the real world. Today’s workers in the real world don’t worry at all about the workers of yesterday. So that problem goes away. If John Elway or Andrew Luck don’t want to play for a certain team, no problem, they no longer have to.

    Most of you are so busy treating this situation as if it were just like every other business in America you have lost sight of what it takes to make this work. The NFL exist because it is unique. But, if that’s what you want, I say go for it. The Cowboys or the Giants can win the title every year. You want a salary cap, fine by me. That’s on the team and the league to deal with. I don’t care what your cap problems are, pay me. Want to use my jersey in the gift shop or my image in your photos or video games, no problem, pay me.

    One big difference between football and the “real world” is talent. Whether anyone on this board wants to admit it or not, most NFL “workers” have unique talent and skill. The NFL was created to showcase that talent and skill because it is fun to watch and people will pay to see it. The people that created the venue are the owners. But players or “workers” have rights too. You want them to be workers, but you don’t want to give them the same rights as every other worker. I have them, you have them, we all have them. We are free to choose whom we work for, or not. NFL players are not. They willingly give up those workers rights for the good of the sport and in exchange for something. They understand the game is just better if the talent is spread rather evenly. They see the benefits and advantages and they willingly agree to surrender those rights – get this – in exchange for other negotiated rights. Chief among those is the right to share in the proceeds. It is not a new concept. But hey, you all have convinced me. They are just workers, plain and simple. Now treat them like that. Get rid of the draft, get rid of free agency, get rid of owning a player’s rights and get rid of trades. Do it and then please just shut up about it.

  12. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 2:49 PM

    “The players want to get paid and don’t care if the sport is the best and why should they. They may like playing the game, but they do it to get paid and don’t worry about the future of the game.”

    Since salaries are DIRECTLY tied to revenues under the last CBA (and likely the next one), the players absolutely DO care about the sport being the best.

  13. nfl25 says: May 18, 2011 2:51 PM

    MOST who get paid on writing or talking about NFL was on the players side. main reason is they want to put pressure on the owners to give into the players. if the media can get everyone against the owners, they will feel alot of pressure to just agree to what the players want. the players have nothing to lose at this point and they dont have to worry about making fans happy

  14. angrytna says: May 18, 2011 2:54 PM

    I’m so tired of this crap. All we’ve been hearing recently is about “leverage”, “negotiation not litigation” and De Moron. The NFLPA* wants to wait it out because their idiot leader is making them believe they will get the leverage back. What they fail to completely realize, the owners still have the ULTIMATE leverage. They can completely shut down operations and I can honestly say I wouldn’t fault them for that. Yet, they seem to be the one group making an effort to negotiate. I’d be lying if I said I will no longer watch football. However, I can honestly say that if any games are missed I will never purchase any type of NFL merchandise ever again. I’m a long time (31 yrs) Miami Dolphins fan…. so you know I can handle pain. I’ve had my favorite players on the team, but they’ve come and gone. I’m like most die hard NFL fans….. I just want football. I have so much more to say, but there is no sense in repeating what so many on here have already said or feel. Just get this deal done you fricken idiots!

  15. hail2tharedskins says: May 18, 2011 2:55 PM

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by any new tactic in this battle, but individual lawsuits for breach of contract seem unlikely, expensive, and waste of time. First of all, individual lawsuits is expensive, I don’t think spending money on litigation is what the individual players will want to do in face of no game checks. More importantly, if the 8th circuit rules that the lockout as legal – that would be a huge hurdle to overcome in a breach of contract suit. Even if the cases are filed in another jurisdiction, once the record states the lockout is legal the teams would be pretty well insulated for breach of contract lawsuits. It would take a court to basically overturn or ignore the 8th circuit’s ruling – which would be a lengthy legal battle. And if you ended up with conflicting circuit rulings on the legality of a lockout, then you are asking the Supreme Court to resolve it – which is nothing that is going to happen in short order. Meanwhile, no football, no paychecks, and a lot of billable hours. I just don’t believe this is a viable tactic, but I suppose I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few players try it just to see what happens.

  16. willycents says: May 18, 2011 2:57 PM

    And PFT tells us what the next move after the 8th rules will be for the nflpa. Get all their stooges to file suit against the NFL five minutes after the ruling is released.

    good bye football for the duration of all these lawsuits. Or do the teams simply exercise their option of “cutting” those players, hence, no contractual obligations for them to sue over?

    just asking

  17. greghensley says: May 18, 2011 2:58 PM

    New CBA = happy fans, happy owners making money, happy players make money, unhappy lawyers

    lawsuits= unhappy fans, , bankrupt players and owners shutdown the NFL completely, HAPPY lawyers

    The longer this thing drags out the less money for owners and players but hey the lawyers keep filling their pockets while the fans find other things to spend their money on like umm gas.

  18. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 3:01 PM

    Without a collective agreement this is what you open yourself up for. 1800 potential lawsuits. But hey, treat them all like employees. Thats all they are anyway. When Marshwn Lynch made that run for the Seahawks in the playoffs last season, he was just punchin a clock. Nothing special about it.

  19. johnnyoclock says: May 18, 2011 3:02 PM

    “It’s one of the arrows in our quiver, and it’s a large one,” Schaffer said. “We hope that it doesn’t come to that point. We hope that cooler heads prevail, that the two sides find a resolution, and that at the end of the day people negotiating the deal will put the interests of the game ahead of their own. ”

    Then how about you just don’t do it?

    How about you just don’t drag the game down into that mud?

    How about you look up the definition compromise? Half of this country has this bizarre notion that compromise means just shutup and stop arguing with me and give in to me.

    This whole thing really is all on De Smith and Co. If there is any arrow of litigation in said quiver, they’ll use it in effort to stall to get the owners, who they believe are typical American fatcats who don’t have the stomach for a real fight, to just shutup and give in. They’ll use whatever they can in thinking the owners will give in if they can drag this to the brink of the season. They don’t care about the consequences.

    They don’t care what damage they do in pursuit of victory. They just don’t care. No football in September, folks.

  20. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 3:02 PM

    “if the media can get everyone against the owners, they will feel alot of pressure to just agree to what the players want. the players have nothing to lose at this point and they dont have to worry about making fans happy”

    What a mess.

    1) Why does “the media” care? Why would they side with the players?

    2) Why do the owners, who have shown time and time again they couldn’t care less what the fans think, cave based on public opinion? This is a multi-billion dollar business, not a beauty pageant.

    Seriously, what conspiracy theory do you see? The NFL owns “media” (NFL.com and NFL Network) and has billion dollar partnerships with ABC, ESPN, NBC, CBS. Why would those networks want to alienate the owners or influence one side or another?

  21. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 3:03 PM

    You want to end this – today? Lift the damn lockout.

  22. hail2tharedskins says: May 18, 2011 3:04 PM

    Another reason I don’t think the players can win a breach of contract lawsuit is because their contracts are not guaranteed in the first place. The teams don’t have an obligation to the players. The contracts NFL players sign agree to exchange services for money, and they are paid per game (not on a monthly or annual basis). Therefore, if there is no game there is no obligation to pay and therefore there is no breach. So, coupled with my previous post I think this tactic would fail miserably, one becasue the lockout and federal labor would insulate the clubs from a beach of contract lawsuit and even if it doesn’t there still wouldn’t be a breach of contract – there contract does not guarantee them the right to play (or even get paid for that matter – except in a few rare instances)

  23. willycents says: May 18, 2011 3:04 PM

    @marjones45 says:May 18, 2011 2:48 PM

    I agree with you, and I am pro owner, sorta. So as a player, you want to be treated equally with employees of all other companies. Great.
    Here is your deal:
    1. You are a contract employee. The sole responsibility of the team is outlined in the laws defining contract employees.
    2. In return for your “cash,” there is a 5 year non-compete clause in the contract.(has held up in many court cases)
    3. No benefits; retirement, medical, none. you blow out a knee, get a new one, at your expense.

    Look into the requirements a contractor must provide his subs before you start to wish for that life as opposed to the current situation that you have.

  24. skins359 says: May 18, 2011 3:06 PM

    waitingguilty says:
    May 18, 2011 2:38 PM
    The players want to be viewed as partners…partners do not nuke the entire enterprise to get leverage do they?

    222
    ————-
    ZE POWER IZ ALL ZAT MATTERZ MUAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

  25. bobwhitequail says: May 18, 2011 3:07 PM

    Additional lawsuits is exactly what Jeffrey Kessler, lead counsel, and De Smith wants. It puts more money in their pockets.

    Negotiating a deal would just about eliminate the need for Kessler and De Smith. SO of course they are going to fight in as many ways as possible to drag it out as long as possible.

    The longer the suits (lawsuits) take, the more money the suits (lawyers) make.

    The players are getting taken for a ride by these guys and don’t even know it.

  26. geo1113 says: May 18, 2011 3:13 PM

    @marjones45

    OK. We get it. You have the unique talent of being able to cut and post your incoherent, rambling post.

  27. boonedigg says: May 18, 2011 3:17 PM

    As a Packer fan I know about the teams finances since they are of public record, every year under the last CBA the teams profits have declined while operating costs including player salaries have increased. It is inevitable that at some point that the profit will disappear under the current deal that the De and the players want. This is unacceptable, they need a deal where the operating costs and profits are parallel, instead of on a collision course. Get out of the damn courtroom and negotiate a fair deal for both sides you goofballs!

  28. spartyfi says: May 18, 2011 3:19 PM

    I’m sick of people talking about the long term health issues these players face. IF they don’t like it, then they can choose another career. It’s really that simple….what about the REAL football players back in the day? They got paid peanuts (literally I think) and didn’t cry like these pansies.

  29. willycents says: May 18, 2011 3:21 PM

    Here is the solution…Let me pick six people who post on here, three from each “side” of the matter at hand and give us baseball bats.
    Place the lawyers/negotiaters in a room with us, and, the first SOB that shows signs of not negotiating in good faith, the representatives of the other side beat the sonnabitch to death. Then replace him with another lawyer/negotiator.
    After two or three beatings, I bet the rest will negotiate an end to this mess with great seriousness.

    any volunteers?

  30. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 3:21 PM

    @marjones45 says:May 18, 2011 2:48 PM

    I agree with you, and I am pro owner, sorta. So as a player, you want to be treated equally with employees of all other companies. Great.
    Here is your deal:
    1. You are a contract employee. The sole responsibility of the team is outlined in the laws defining contract employees.
    2. In return for your “cash,” there is a 5 year non-compete clause in the contract.(has held up in many court cases)
    3. No benefits; retirement, medical, none. you blow out a knee, get a new one, at your expense.

    Look into the requirements a contractor must provide his subs before you start to wish for that life as opposed to the current situation that you have.
    _________________________________
    And I have the right to decline. Thanks, but no thanks. The Falcons, your competitor, made me a better offer.

    I am an business owner, contractor and ocassionally a sub contractor. I don’t sign or accept every offer that comes into the door. I have the right to choose.

  31. chuckcecil says: May 18, 2011 3:22 PM

    “After all, the owners interrupted 20 years of labor peace by tearing up the agreement they made with the players in 2006, claiming the terms were too generous — even though they agreed to those terms with just two dissenting votes. The owners complained they weren’t getting a big enough slice of a $9 billion revenue bonanza. The owners dishonestly negotiated TV contracts, accepting below-market deals in order to give less money to players, so as to squeeze them even harder”

    but…but… the Players are selfish crybabies and DSmith’s hats suck.

  32. dccowboy says: May 18, 2011 3:24 PM

    Given that there are now two offers made by the NFL that the players have not deigned to respond to (other than derisive hyperbole in the press, what makes you think they have ANY interest in a negotiated CBA. It seems to me they favor the litigation route, which, in my opinion, will eventually result in the destruction of the NFL.

  33. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 3:24 PM

    As a Packer fan I know about the teams finances since they are of public record, every year under the last CBA the teams profits have declined while operating costs including player salaries have increased. It is inevitable that at some point that the profit will disappear under the current deal that the De and the players want. This is unacceptable, they need a deal where the operating costs and profits are parallel, instead of on a collision course. Get out of the damn courtroom and negotiate a fair deal for both sides you goofballs!
    ___________________________________
    This poster is correct. If you read the financials, their profits did decline and salaries increased. Who agreed to pay those salaries? Who offered them? Mark Murphy. No one put a gun to his head.

  34. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 18, 2011 3:27 PM

    @marjones

    They are EMPLOYEES, NOT PARTNERS!!!!!

    Show me ONE player that owns a percentage of a team. Just ONE.

    If a players doesn’t OWN at least 0.000001% of a team then he is NOT a partner of the guy that DOES OWN the team.

    The player gets a salary agreed upon in his contract with the TEAM, which is owned by the OWNER.
    In his contract he is to PERFORM(work) for the team by playing (working)football

    Do ya got it yet?

  35. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 3:32 PM

    boonedigg…

    That was a choice the Packers made. They decided to sign talented players and not skimp.

    Wonder how that worked out for them? You think winning a Super Bowl helped the bottom line a tad?

  36. dccowboy says: May 18, 2011 3:32 PM

    “After all, the owners interrupted 20 years of labor peace by tearing up the agreement they made with the players in 2006, claiming the terms were too generous — even though they agreed to those terms with just two dissenting votes. The owners complained they weren’t getting a big enough slice of a $9 billion revenue bonanza. The owners dishonestly negotiated TV contracts, accepting below-market deals in order to give less money to players, so as to squeeze them even harder”

    ================

    the Owners didn’t ‘tear up the agreement’. Stop acting like the Owners performed some arbitrary act to simply walk away from the CBA. they exercised an agreed to clause in the CBA to opt out of the CBA earlier than the end date. This WAS AGREED TO BY THE PLAYERS. In fact, the players could have done the same thing if they so desired. I find it hard to understand why the players are running around acting like it is such a shock that the Owners actually elected to exercise the clause. If they thought it was so horrible, why did they vote to accept it into the CBA in the first place.?

  37. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 3:41 PM

    The player gets a salary agreed upon in his contract with the TEAM, which is owned by the OWNER.
    In his contract he is to PERFORM(work) for the team by playing (working)football

    Do ya got it yet?
    ___________________________________
    There are any number of ways to define partners and not all partners get a share of ownership. Some get a share of the proceeds.

    But hey, I already agree with you 100%. They are workers. No problem. Now treat them like workers or shut up about it.

  38. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 3:47 PM

    iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says:
    May 18, 2011 3:27 PM
    @marjones

    They are EMPLOYEES, NOT PARTNERS!!!!!

    Show me ONE player that owns a percentage of a team. Just ONE.
    ___________________________________
    Oh yeah, by the way, Magic Johnson did until he sold his interest back to Dr. Buss.

  39. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 3:52 PM

    He (iamtalking) doesn’t understand, he’s a bitter white make who is in a dead-end job. Because he never did anything to make himself skilled or marketable. He is jealous of people with power over their situation.

    Asking him to understand revenue sharing and the CBA is like asking a monkey to play piano.

    It is a waste of time. He hate union, he hate players he wishes he was. End of story.

  40. nfl25 says: May 18, 2011 4:01 PM

    moochzilla says:
    May 18, 2011 2:49 PM
    “The players want to get paid and don’t care if the sport is the best and why should they. They may like playing the game, but they do it to get paid and don’t worry about the future of the game.”

    Since salaries are DIRECTLY tied to revenues under the last CBA (and likely the next one), the players absolutely DO care about the sport being the best
    ————————————————

    do u really think the right gaurd on ur team is thinking about how to make the game better down the road? if i was the right gaurd, i sure as hell wouldnt be thinking about that. i would be thinking about getting my family paid cuz i may only have 2 years left in this game. i think u took what i said as though i am saying bad things about the players. i am not.

  41. iplaybad says: May 18, 2011 4:05 PM

    @marjones45 — thank you for finally bringing some sense to this discussion. Isn’t it strange that the players aren’t partners; but, they get the majority of the profits?

    Look, in a world where a worker is marginalized, the more s/he will fight back using whatever means necessary. That’s where we are today. The owners have locked out the players. The players have filed a lawsuit.

    Conceptually, what the players’ lawsuit really asks is: how do you want to see the players? IF the players are simply “the help,” then you will have something that’s in between the MLB and Spanish Futbol: transfer fees when player rights are traded and the requirements of a new negotiated deal with the new club; powerhouse teams that win every year; farm systems that start when players get out of middle school, high school, or (junior) college; players like P. Manning or T. Brady making $35mm per year in salary.

    What the owners will have to realize (likely through litigation) is that the former system was so incredibly lucrative for them that it doesn’t make sense to do it any differently. Even if the owners win that the lockout is legitimate, they still have to face individual breach contracts. That will create an even grander stalemate. You do know that the owners still have to make stadium payments, don’t you?

    Thankfully, the owners’ lawyers are STARTING to realize this reality, which is why the owners made another offer EVEN THOUGH THE PLAYERS HAVE BEEN UNRESPONSIVE TO THEIR PREVIOUS OFFER.

    If they’re just employees, no worries. But, no draft. You want me to sign a non-compete deal? Suck it, Trebek. I’ll sign with another team that doesn’t force my hand this way. Good luck fielding a team that people want to see. Your games are blacked out and you’ll pay for your stadium and your mistresses again how?

  42. harmcityhomer says: May 18, 2011 4:08 PM

    Regardless of if it would or would not ruin the NFL as we know it, I can not see the players reforming the union or accepting any CBA offer short of the last one.

    If they accept a CBA offer, they prove the owners claim the decert was a sham. Also any leverage the player have is won in court. I see no advantage to the modern player of having a union and CBA over an individuall contract.

    The owners seem to have some of the legal leverage back at this point, but the strategy of trying to prove the decertification is a sham has to have an expiration point. At some point the union is allowed to dissolve and the NFL will have to operate with a non union workforce.

  43. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 4:15 PM

    NFL – my point is that the owners and players have the same interest – a league that makes money. This is a business. It’s about making money. Forget about meaningless measures like “better” or “worse”.

    The RG isn’t thinking about how to make the game “better”, merely how to make it more “profitable”. So he works hard, he goes to a team where he’ll have a better opportunity to land a better deal.

    The owners aren’t thinking about how to make the game “better”, merely how to make it more “profitable”.

    You buy into the false brand positioning (developed by a PR firm) that Roger Goodell is your advocate for Mom & Apple Pie & The American Way and that the owners care about anything besides money. That’s not him, it’s a character he is playing.

    It’s like listening to my grandmom talk about the church when all they wanted was her money.

  44. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 4:16 PM

    And a lot of that isn’t directed at you – it’s to the people who seem to believe that the players want to destroy the league for reasons that none of them can explain.

  45. vadog says: May 18, 2011 4:17 PM

    I think that I am going to get into the football team ownership business. I think I will sign some players to play in my little home town. I will then sue the NFL if they refuse to allow my team to play in their league. Some of you are about “union busting.” I am about monopoly busting. And the NFL is a virtual monopoly.

  46. nfl25 says: May 18, 2011 4:20 PM

    while i respect the pro player arguments. i dont see ur side at all. just because sports can only be run if they are run differntly than a normal job, that doesnt mean the owners arent allowed to opt out of a deal that inst working for them and ask that the players work on a new one with tjem. and hey, the players can say screw u, we will take u to court and make u pay us what u were paying us. can i ask why the players put the opt out clause in the agreement,?

  47. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 4:22 PM

    nfl25 says:
    May 18, 2011 4:20 PM
    while i respect the pro player arguments. i dont see ur side at all.
    ________________________________

    Imagine our surprise.

  48. willycents says: May 18, 2011 4:22 PM

    @ iplaybad and marjones45:

    Stick your hand in a bucket of water then pull it out. The mark that is left in the water is how much of a difference you will make to the fans after you are gone from the NFL. Your 3 – 5 years in the NFL are what percentage of the time the NFL has been in existence?

    All that we as fans ask is that you do not, in your temper tantrum and desire to win at all costs, destroy the sports system in America that we all enjoy.
    Yes, your lawsuit; Brady, et al, has the potential of destroying all sports leagues in the nation. From peewee league(I sponsor a team) through the NCAA and all professional leagues. Collusion between the owners is necessary to provide a competitive balance in any league. We DRAFT players in our peewee league. I can see parents sueing our peewee league over the fact that we allocate players. Read your frigging lawsuit before you think you are not going to do damage to sports leagues everywhere. Or are you both like Brees…”Too many words .”

  49. billybats says: May 18, 2011 4:23 PM

    Hey “marjones45,” you sound a lot like George Ayatollah of the NFLPA*.

    It’s pretty sad if all you have to do these days is pretend to be a pro-player fan posting on a football talk website.

    How about telling your boss Jackie Chiles to quit embarrassing himself in the press and actually get back to the negotiating table?

  50. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 4:24 PM

    “What the owners will have to realize (likely through litigation) is that the former system was so incredibly lucrative for them that it doesn’t make sense to do it any differently. ”

    Well, that depends. It was lucrative for Green Bay because they could share national TV revenues instead of relying on their own small market deal.

    It was lucrative for Tampa and Seattle because they could share merchandising revenue (largely driven by teams like Dallas and Pittsburgh).

    It was lucrative to Jacksonville because the teams with fan bases and in-stadium revenues couldn’t outspend them due to the salary cap. They could franchise and transition their players and have some level of protection.

    But did it work for Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder? Nope, they are essentially subsidizing the have nots and got tired of it.

    The sooner the have not owners realize that much of the CBA was keeping them in business, the sooner we can have a reality check here.

    Many of the vocal people here – iamtalking – are daily offering up wish lists that would make the game MLB and ensure that we had an 18 team league inside of 6 years. But they’re operating on emotion, not business reality.

  51. sammyias says: May 18, 2011 4:24 PM

    @marjones25

    I am with you, without that pesky CBA, the league can go to 40 regular games a year. I like the sound of that.

  52. harmcityhomer says: May 18, 2011 4:26 PM

    No one I read on the player’s side claim the owners did not have the right to opt out of the last CBA. They just do not have the right to force the players to accept a new one for less money.

    I also find it shady that they are attacking the player’s right to decertify the union.

    With the award from the TV lockout insurance case, the players should not actually miss any checks. The appeals court may be able claim the lower court does not have the power to lift the lockout, but the lockout insurance case is clearly in the right jurisdiction and is pretty much a slam dunk in favor of the players.

  53. duanethomas says: May 18, 2011 4:28 PM

    marjones45 says:
    May 18, 2011 2:48 PM
    Enough already. I have just had enough. Most of the people that post here are pro-owner which translates into anti-player. The players are contractual partners with the owners, but most posters insist on calling them workers and employees. First of all, this is entertainment, plain and simple. It is not ONLY a business. You are unwilling to accept that many of the rules that allow pro football to be what it is for everyone are negotiated rules. The owners draft players, conduct free-agency, have salary caps etc. because the NFLPA agrees to it. In return, the players get different forms of compensation. Whether most of you here either don’t understand that, don’t agree with it or just don’t believe it, it is a negotiated partnership. It has to be to allow some of the rules to exist. This is not Walmart, Microsoft or the local welding shop. But enough is enough, you win.

    There is no more players union. Keep it that way. From this day forward, they are all workers. When they graduate or leave college, they can apply for a job wherever they want, whenever they want. That’s what every other worker has the right to do. The better run, more organized teams can “recruit” the players they want. That’s how the better companies in America do it. There will be no need for a rookie salary plan because there will not be a draft. Sign a five or six year contract and when that’s over, a player can go apply for work with another team or two or three. He should be able to choose from the offer that best suites him, his family and his personal and professional goals. Those contracts will include salary, bonuses, health care, retirement, whatever he can get. That’s what every other worker has the right to do. No more player trades. IBM does not and can not trade workers with Symantec. Just release him. He is free to go to work for someone else. If owners don’t meet the terms of the contracts, the players can just leave and apply elsewhere. If the players don’t meet expectations, just fire him. That’s what happens in the real world. Today’s workers in the real world don’t worry at all about the workers of yesterday. So that problem goes away. If John Elway or Andrew Luck don’t want to play for a certain team, no problem, they no longer have to.

    Most of you are so busy treating this situation as if it were just like every other business in America you have lost sight of what it takes to make this work. The NFL exist because it is unique. But, if that’s what you want, I say go for it. The Cowboys or the Giants can win the title every year. You want a salary cap, fine by me. That’s on the team and the league to deal with. I don’t care what your cap problems are, pay me. Want to use my jersey in the gift shop or my image in your photos or video games, no problem, pay me.

    One big difference between football and the “real world” is talent. Whether anyone on this board wants to admit it or not, most NFL “workers” have unique talent and skill. The NFL was created to showcase that talent and skill because it is fun to watch and people will pay to see it. The people that created the venue are the owners. But players or “workers” have rights too. You want them to be workers, but you don’t want to give them the same rights as every other worker. I have them, you have them, we all have them. We are free to choose whom we work for, or not. NFL players are not. They willingly give up those workers rights for the good of the sport and in exchange for something. They understand the game is just better if the talent is spread rather evenly. They see the benefits and advantages and they willingly agree to surrender those rights – get this – in exchange for other negotiated rights. Chief among those is the right to share in the proceeds. It is not a new concept. But hey, you all have convinced me. They are just workers, plain and simple. Now treat them like that. Get rid of the draft, get rid of free agency, get rid of owning a player’s rights and get rid of trades. Do it and then please just shut up about

    Waste of time trying to explain to the idiots on this site. They equate their job with having a highly skilled unique talent. They think the players are replaceable and their talent is like theirs..a dime a dozen. Dont even start with supply and demand. Great Points and I enjoyed reading.

  54. duanethomas says: May 18, 2011 4:34 PM

    moochzilla says:
    May 18, 2011 3:52 PM
    He (iamtalking) doesn’t understand, he’s a bitter white make who is in a dead-end job. Because he never did anything to make himself skilled or marketable. He is jealous of people with power over their situation.

    Asking him to understand revenue sharing and the CBA is like asking a monkey to play piano.

    It is a waste of time. He hate union, he hate players he wishes he was. End of story.

    AGREE!!!! 100% Except he has no job.

  55. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 4:35 PM

    To: Moochzilla, MarJones and ChuckCecil:

    If you are getting frustrated trying to argue your points to these people, just keep in mind that you are trying to convince the same people who believe, among other things, that:

    1) OBL is still alive;
    2) Palin will beat Obama in 2012;
    3) BP should have unfettered discretion to drill whenever and whereever it wants;
    4) An effective gun control law is limiting bullet clips from 40 to 30; and
    5) Planned parenthood is an utter waste of money

    Arguing with them is a complete exercise in futility.

  56. commoncents says: May 18, 2011 4:37 PM

    I hope the leverage game involves De-mo’s head in a vice and Wilfork twisting the crank.

  57. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 4:41 PM

    fl25 says:
    May 18, 2011 4:20 PM
    while i respect the pro player arguments. i dont see ur side at all. just because sports can only be run if they are run differntly than a normal job, that doesnt mean the owners arent allowed to opt out of a deal that inst working for them and ask that the players work on a new one with tjem. and hey, the players can say screw u, we will take u to court and make u pay us what u were paying us. can i ask why the players put the opt out clause in the agreement,?
    ___________________________________
    I could not agree more. The owners excercised their right to opt out. Then, over the next TWO years, they made no offer. Not one. They made one offer at the 12th hour of the last day of an extended court ordered arbitration session. They never intended to make a serious offer and they never expected a serious counter offer. This was always going to court. Always. We are exactly where the owners have always wanted to be, looking at a protracted legal battle. If the owners can outlast the players, they will win. If not, they will loose, and the owners have more money. This is and always has been as simple as that. When you are up against someone who has more money and power, the court system is the only place the average person can turn to force them to deal fairly.

    And if there are any lawyers on this board…and oh my god there have to be, they would tell you that a contract without opt outs, or some mechanism for BOTH parties to cancel is not worth the paper it is written on.

  58. nfl25 says: May 18, 2011 5:06 PM

    marjones45

    u could be 100% correct but the truth is nobody knows. i dont know who is right and who is worng. but the only part i know is that i dont like the fact that the players are attcking the game.

    the one thing i dont agree with u about is, you act as though just because the owners have more power they are automatically wrong in this situation. they may be doing all the things u are saying, but what if they are doing it because they cant function on the old deal and they know the only way to get $$ back is to do what u are saying???

  59. kc4life7 says: May 18, 2011 5:06 PM

    One big difference between football and the “real world” is talent. Whether anyone on this board wants to admit it or not, most NFL “workers” have unique talent and skill. The NFL was created to showcase that talent and skill because it is fun to watch and people will pay to see it. The people that created the venue are the owners. But players or “workers” have rights too. You want them to be workers, but you don’t want to give them the same rights as every other worker. I have them, you have them, we all have them. We are free to choose whom we work for, or not. NFL players are not. They willingly give up those workers rights for the good of the sport and in exchange for something. They understand the game is just better if the talent is spread rather evenly. They see the benefits and advantages and they willingly agree to surrender those rights – get this – in exchange for other negotiated rights. Chief among those is the right to share in the proceeds. It is not a new concept. But hey, you all have convinced me. They are just workers, plain and simple. Now treat them like that. Get rid of the draft, get rid of free agency, get rid of owning a player’s rights and get rid of trades. Do it and then please just shut up about it.

    ___________________________________

    This post is just wrong on so many levels. Yeah, congratulations, you somehow compared the “real world” to the “NFL” and tried to make all of us “pro-owners” look stupid.

    Hate to break it to you, those players aren’t FORCED to play in the NFL. You say that they give up the right to play for the teams they want? Ummm….ever heard of people being forced to move to different cities for their jobs in the “Real World”.

    Yeah, congratulations, in the real world you can apply for which jobs you want. Once you get that job though, you don’t get to go in and start demanding stuff. Your argument makes no sense.

  60. tjrubleysaudible says: May 18, 2011 5:10 PM

    willycents says: May 18, 2011 3:21 PM

    Here is the solution…Let me pick six people who post on here, three from each “side” of the matter at hand and give us baseball bats.
    Place the lawyers/negotiaters in a room with us, and, the first SOB that shows signs of not negotiating in good faith, the representatives of the other side beat the sonnabitch to death. Then replace him with another lawyer/negotiator.
    After two or three beatings, I bet the rest will negotiate an end to this mess with great seriousness.

    any volunteers?

    ———————————

    I want in! I’ll bring my own bat and a roll of plastic sheeting, even.

  61. nfl25 says: May 18, 2011 5:10 PM

    marjones45

    a majority of the player backers make no sense. u actually say things that make some sense.

  62. sgtlatta says: May 18, 2011 5:12 PM

    @marjones45
    what i think you and most people on this board dont understand is that if the players win and get what they want, part of which is no draft… college football will die.

    currently players need to be on their 3rd year of college to be eligible for the draft…

    without a draft, players could be recruited right out of high school… no need to compete for scholarships… just play like a beast in high school, and get an agent.

    it might be a different sport, but anyone remember kobe bryant?

  63. jimmysee says: May 18, 2011 5:16 PM

    And how, exactly, are these 1,000 players, some of who are scrapping by hoping against hope for that first game check, borrowing money from teammates, unable to pay their bills, and in one case, borrowing $500k at 23% interest from who, Tony Soprano or some payday loan shop (??) (!) going to finance all this litigation?

  64. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 5:20 PM

    nfl25 says:
    May 18, 2011 5:06 PM

    the one thing i dont agree with u about is, you act as though just because the owners have more power they are automatically wrong in this situation. they may be doing all the things u are saying, but what if they are doing it because they cant function on the old deal and they know the only way to get $$ back is to do what u are saying???
    ——————–
    And we are back to square one. All the players want is PROOF that the owners “can’t function on the old deal” (i.e. show the books).

  65. huskersrock1 says: May 18, 2011 5:22 PM

    marjones45

    So tell me about the lat player offer again.

    ………….

    Oh yea, there wasn’t one.

  66. deadeye says: May 18, 2011 5:32 PM

    “You want to end this – today? Lift the damn lockout.”

    =============================

    What a genius suggestion. How about suggesting that the players negotiate instead of litigate? We wouldn’t miss any football if they did that.

    But noooo, the entire burden is on the owners to bend over and take whatever the players give.

  67. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 5:41 PM

    @huskersrock

    marjones45

    So tell me about the lat player offer again.
    ………….
    Oh yea, there wasn’t one.
    _____________________________
    Huskersrock and everyone else that doesn’t know di*k about negotiation.

    When one side makes a ridiculous offer (in this case the owners opened with the same exact rejected offer that was made 2 years ago), the other side is not obligated to make a counteroffer. Nor is it obligated when the opening offer is off the wall. People walk away from “negotiating” tables all the time when one side makes such “offers”.

    For instance – If I sue you for $1M for running me over with your car and you offer me $1 to settle, I am not obligated to counteroffer you $999,999 and then wait for your $2 offer then $999,998 and so forth. Nor am I going to respond to your $1 offer two years down the road when you already made the same dumb $1 offer before.

    This is what the owners did!! What part of this don’t you pro-owner imbeciles get? Seriously? If any of you made one cognizable argument, us pro-players would actually listen to you.

  68. marthisdil says: May 18, 2011 5:47 PM

    Funny how they can use their contract, being locked out, as “breach of contract” yet, when the player doesn’t like the terms HE AGREED TO…he can hold out..

    Breach of contract works both ways, losers.

  69. bunjy96 says: May 18, 2011 5:58 PM

    It will be only one suit.

    If it ever does happen, it will be a class action.

    Good luck with that. Almost every players contract is different and no way the courts will allow 1700+ lawsuits. It would tie up the courts and the NFL for years.

  70. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 6:04 PM

    “So tell me about the lat player offer again. ”

    Status quo. The agreement that made everyone filthy rich.

    Ya know…that one.

  71. mick730 says: May 18, 2011 6:05 PM

    “Wonder how that worked out for them? You think winning a Super Bowl helped the bottom line a tad?”

    Well, actually, we won’t know that for about another month or so. The Packers are on a fiscal year accounting cycle and that fiscal year ended March 31, 2011. The financial statements are usually released the end of June or early July.

    However, since all the television revenue for the playoff games and the Super Bowl is included in the overall league deal, and all the Packer playoff games were away during their Super Bowl run, it is highly likely that the Packers will show less of a profit for fiscal 2011 than they did for fiscal 2010.
    While the individual Packer players each made more money in the Playoffs and the Super Bowl, the expenses for the organization far outweighed the uptick in jersey sales and the like.

    Also, just so you know, the Packers had the youngest team in the NFL for the entire length of the last CBA. In addition, they do not spend heavily on other team’s free agents, preferring to usually sign their own. The Packers are not cheap with their own players and treat them exceeedingly well.

    That being said, there are now 11 players on the Green Bay roster who are each scheduled to make more than the entire organization made in fiscal 2010. Not eleven players as a group, but individually, each of those 11 will make more than the team.

    As Murphy has told us, the last CBA created a financial situation that was unsustainable for the Packers franchise. Now this pro union poster stated that nobody made the Packers pay their players so well, and that is true.

    So, the Packers, and probably not just that franchise, has some choices. The first is to become permanently a farm team for the large market teams by not spending the money to keep and reward their own players. Yes, they will make a profit for a while, but they will be perennial also-rans, and even in Green Bay, eventually that will lead to lower attendance and overall lower revenues.

    The other choice is and was to join with the other 31 teams in the league, many of whom I’m sure are in the same financial boat as the Packers, and negotiate a new CBA on the players which is fair to both sides.

    You see, it is not a right of NFL players to never have to work again for the rest of their lives when they retire from the NFL. And just to make it clear, no owner is trying to take away money from any NFL player for the coming season. The new CBA simply must slow down the astronomical growth in player salaries. That’s all there is to it.

    Why is that so hard for these people to understand?

  72. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 6:07 PM

    iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says:
    They are EMPLOYEES, NOT PARTNERS!!!!!

    When did the NFLPA ever claim to be partners?

    That’s what the decertification and anti-trust suits are all about.

    The players don’t want to be partners, they don’t want collective bargaining, they don’t want to be drafted, they don’t want to be franchised…

    They just want to be regular old employees in a free market economy, just like you and I.

  73. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 6:12 PM

    Good luck with that. Almost every players contract is different and no way the courts will allow 1700+ lawsuits. It would tie up the courts and the NFL for years.
    —————-
    Bungy,

    You are another pro-owner tard that don’t know sh*t about anything.

    Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, every citizen has a right to due process of law. In words that you and your ignoramus brethren understand, everyone has the right to sue. Courts don’t have the choice to “allow” lawsuits.

    If you think the 1700+ lawsuits are a lot, you are going to crap your Jerry Jones underroos when TENS OF THOUSANDS of NFL season ticket holders sue your beloved owners’ as**es for breach of contract (PSLs). Since they are all contingency fee cases, they don’t have to front money to the lawyers. This WILL happen!

  74. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 6:16 PM

    People don’t start asking for stuff once they’re in a job???

    Really?

    What a sad statement on your life.

  75. mick730 says: May 18, 2011 6:18 PM

    “And we are back to square one. All the players want is PROOF that the owners “can’t function on the old deal” (i.e. show the books).”

    Nonsense. Canard. Straw man. The Packers books as you insist on calling them have always been open and demonstrate quite clearly the owner’s position. The Union’s response is, as seen posted on this very thread, ‘so what? Nobody made the Packers pay their players so much.’

    The players are employees. If they don’t like the terms of their employment, they can find work elsewhere. Very simple. Most NFL players are given a free college education. That so few of them bother to take advantage of that gift is nobody’s fault but their own.

    As for their “unique talents”, nonsense. Thousands of college players line up every year in the hope of being drafted. Not all of them make it, but a lot do and each and every year, and all those veterans you feel are so “unique”, get waived and cut.

    The Packers won the Super Bowl with steet free agents filling in for the “uniquely talented” guys.

    The bottom line is that the 15% yearly increase in player salaries cannot continue. That’s all there is to it. You union lap dogs can whine and cry all day about how unique your players are, but they aren’t. Each and every NFL player today is completely replaceable.

    Ask Brett Favre.

  76. coleman121280 says: May 18, 2011 6:18 PM

    wHO CARES, SCREW THE NFL…

    I fell back in love with my first passion…WWE

  77. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 6:21 PM

    Funny how they can use their contract, being locked out, as “breach of contract” yet, when the player doesn’t like the terms HE AGREED TO…he can hold out..

    Breach of contract works both ways, losers.
    ——————
    marthisdil

    If the owners don’t want to be sued for breach of contract, they can easily avoid the 1700+ lawsuits by terminating those contracts (i.e. cuts) just as a player can hold out (works both ways, right?). However, your owners won’t do that know why???? Because they don’t want their indentured servants (er, players) who are signed to owner-friendly contracts from going to the highest bidder once the lockout is over.

    Like your other ignorant pro-owner brethren, the lockout is way beyond your limited intelligence. You and the other pro-owners should stick to what you know…like what constitutes “breaking the plane”.

  78. nfl25 says: May 18, 2011 6:28 PM

    jakek2 says:
    May 18, 2011 5:20 PM

    And we are back to square one. All the players want is PROOF that the owners “can’t function on the old deal” (i.e. show the books).

    ==================================

    they showed 5 years if i am not mistaken. and i should have worded that differnt. i think u might think i am saying the woners are not making a profit. the owners are making a fortune. but they may need more. jakek2 how is it that you know how much the onwers hsould be making?

  79. nfl25 says: May 18, 2011 6:33 PM

    there are like 5 pro player people on this site that make sense and the other 25 ruin it for them. i am pro owner but i got no rpoblem listening to pro player argumenets but some of u are just morons

  80. mick730 says: May 18, 2011 6:42 PM

    “If any of you made one cognizable argument, us pro-players would actually listen to you.”

    Really? Strange, I think most people find the pro union posters to be, like yourself, incredibly insulting, usualy profane, and often using a writing style that is usually found in a typical third grade classroom.

    Yesterday, Jake, you went on one of your rants, telling us all that ‘I make a six figure salary and blah, blah, blah.’ It’s my experience that most people who spout off like that, more often than not, are in reality, a complete 180 from what they are boasting.

    And since the majority of your posts have a political slant to them, and a definitive left wing slant, here’s just an observation:

    Most lefties feel that anybody making more than 250k per year makes too much money and should be taxed at a higher rate. As Obama always says, ‘hey, he, he, how much money do the rich need?’ My guess is that you and your fellow lefties would be aghast at the suggestion that a brain surgeon should be allowed to charge whatever the free market would bear for his services. In fact, I’m sure you would object to that statement were it to be made about a simple Internist. Yet for some reason, you lefties are gung ho “free market” for a tiny, tiny segment of people in an industry which to be honest, as no impact on the rest of the American economy. It is really a small niche entertainment business with about 1700 employees.

    Why the violent and insulting reaction on your part and the part of your fellow leftists I wonder? With so many people in this country now underemployed or totally unemployed, you and your group of bullying lefties are so concerned with the “rights” of a tiny group of, using the vernacular of the left, “super rich football players”. After all, the league minimum is 375k for four or five months worth of work. That is far more than the 250k threshold which you folks usually use to define the “millionaires and billionaires”.

    So, why Jake old boy is this the case? My guess is that it’s because the NFL players are in a union. In fact, their union is a subset of the AFL-CIO. So let’s be honest here alright? You guys would back this union to the hilt no matter what the issues may or may not be. It is not a matter of principal, or human rights, or free markets or any of the other platitudes you spout off about. It is simply that as part of your left wing ideology, unions are one of the good guys and owners are the bad guys. And of course as we all now see with the public sector employee unions, the left gets a huge amount of money with which to finance your power struggles from those unions.

  81. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 6:44 PM

    Mick,

    Thanks for the solid points. Just a few questions…

    “As Murphy has told us, the last CBA created a financial situation that was unsustainable for the Packers franchise.”

    Profits are down, which is different from being unprofitable. Is it less lucrative than before? Sure. Is it “unsustainable”, no. I have no issues with someone saying they want to make more money, just spare me the BS about the league imploding. It makes money. The NBA? That’s unsustainable.

    “You see, it is not a right of NFL players to never have to work again for the rest of their lives when they retire from the NFL.”

    What does that mean? The salaries reflect what the market is willing to pay. It reflects the revenues they create given their role in the enterprise. Your team must compete foe scarce specialized labor – same reason neurosurgeons make a lot of money. They earn their money, do you see their pay as some kind of entitlement? What would lead you to believe that?

  82. jeff061 says: May 18, 2011 6:46 PM

    This is ridiculous and not well thought out. A lawsuit like this is at least 6 months from seeing the light of day in a courtroom. You just don’t file lawsuits and get court dates.

    Players are ridiculous – they expect this to just be handed to them – they have refused to neogotitate from day 1 – really pathetic.

  83. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 6:54 PM

    jakek2 says:
    If you think the 1700+ lawsuits are a lot, you are going to crap your Jerry Jones underroos when TENS OF THOUSANDS of NFL season ticket holders sue your beloved owners’ as**es for breach of contract (PSLs). Since they are all contingency fee cases, they don’t have to front money to the lawyers. This WILL happen!

    Jake, like you I am not a pro-owner or crazily hostile against the players, and my posts pretty well bear that out.

    Having said that I’m inclined to think there’s something in the PSL agreements that protect the owners against such suits. I don’t know for sure but it would be awfully shortsighted on the part of the owners and those that represent them if they didn’t, and owners tend not to roll that way.

  84. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 7:23 PM

    mick730 says:
    The Packers books as you insist on calling them have always been open and demonstrate quite clearly the owner’s position.

    Okay, so 1/32th of the information has been made available, and it shows profits of over $120 M over the past five years.

    Not a very good argument to support a lockout.

    The players are employees. If they don’t like the terms of their employment, they can find work elsewhere. Very simple.

    I’m saying this in as friendly a manner as possible- you need to learn about anti-trust law.

    Seriously, use Google or Wiki and read up on it. You’ll quickly learn that the premise of “if the players don’t like what the cartel of 32 owners are offering, they can find work in another field” doesn’t fly in these here United States.

  85. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 7:59 PM

    Tommyf15 – I’m sure you’re right in that there is something in the PSL agreements that limit such suits. However, if an argument can be made that the owners breached the PSL agreement, then all bets are off and the fans can proceed. I hate throwing my profession around b/c pro-owners take it as a sign of braggadocio but I am an attorney and would be confident that a fans’ suit would survive a motion for summary judgment (especially in this economic climate when fans are shaking couch cushions so they don’t lose seats that have been in their families for 50+years).

    Mick,
    I apologize to you for being profane and insulting. I admit that this issue gets my blood boiling especially when I read posts from people who I know only speak from emotion and blind allegiance to their team’s colors and who have zero idea what they are talking about (not that you are one of those people). To respond, I did not intend to throw my salary out there to boast but to respond to another poster who insinuated that I was dumb and uneducated. Second, I don’t have a blind allegiance to unions. I recognize that some unions like a few Teamsters’ unions in the past took advantage of their power, went too far and I would not support that conduct. Here though, the owners want their cake and eat it too and pro-owner posters don’t understand that. For instance, owners want a “lefty” socialized system chuck full of salary caps, franchise tags, drafts all of which the players agreed to as part of the CBA IN EXCHANGE for a share in the revenues but as soon as the owners opted out of that system, they want to punish players for seeking remedies under the “righty” free market system that the owners defaulted into by opting out of the CBA. See the irony?

  86. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 7:59 PM

    kc4life7 says:
    May 18, 2011 5:06 PM

    This post is just wrong on so many levels. Yeah, congratulations, you somehow compared the “real world” to the “NFL” and tried to make all of us “pro-owners” look stupid.

    Hate to break it to you, those players aren’t FORCED to play in the NFL. You say that they give up the right to play for the teams they want? Ummm….ever heard of people being forced to move to different cities for their jobs in the “Real World”.

    Yeah, congratulations, in the real world you can apply for which jobs you want. Once you get that job though, you don’t get to go in and start demanding stuff. Your argument makes no sense.

    ___________________________________

    Well hello. You are the brain of the group I have been searching for all day. You say I am wrong on so many levels. Name and defend just two genius.

    And as far as making you look stupid, I did it with one hand tied behind my back. The reasons you cite here are ridiculous. Nearly every player has to move. That has no bearing on any point anyone is trying to make.

    Once a player gets a job, you don’t start demanding stuff. Which one did that?

    If you truly understood what is at stake and understood my satire, you would understand my point is that both parties need each other. No one wants this to end more than I. But if you really want to treat them as employees, then okay. Lets go for it. I just don’t think you really mean it. You have not thought it all the way through.

    The one thing I do not understand KC4 is this. What is it about the owners and their position that you identify with? Try as you might, neither you nor anyone you know will ever be allowed to be an owner in the NFL. EVER!!! They would not allow it.

  87. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 8:21 PM

    deadeye says:
    May 18, 2011 5:32 PM
    “You want to end this – today? Lift the damn lockout.”

    =============================

    What a genius suggestion. How about suggesting that the players negotiate instead of litigate? We wouldn’t miss any football if they did that.

    But noooo, the entire burden is on the owners to bend over and take whatever the players give.

    I just wish everyone would be adult about this.

    No the entire burden is not on the owners. But most of it is, yes. They opted out. Had the players opted out I would have the same opinion about them. The owners are the ones causing me some distress in my life. So since the owners did start all of this, and then they came in at the last minute with an offer they KNEW would be turned down, insulting the intelligence of both players and fans alike, yes I think do think the burden of proof shifts substantially on the owners.

  88. dkeyser says: May 18, 2011 8:33 PM

    The equipment known as “Jock Strap” will now be played by Michael Silver

  89. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 8:41 PM

    One would hope that, through all of this, that some kind of Reagan-Gorbachev thing can develop.

    The two sides have now proven to one another that they can blow it all up.

    Having done that, can they see that is a stupid choice?

  90. tomosbornesretirementcostjoepaatitle says: May 18, 2011 8:59 PM

    This sport is so pro wrestling these days.

  91. tomosbornesretirementcostjoepaatitle says: May 18, 2011 9:05 PM

    jakek2 says:

    Your argument does not take into account the financial increases owners are facing due to increased expenditures (hello bad economy) on venues and operating costs. These guys will STILL be making more money in the future (based on continued growth) if they chopped a percentage off of their cut of revenue sharing. As they push forward though they run the risk of making less in the future based on fan loss (hello NHL).

  92. tommyf15 says: May 18, 2011 9:28 PM

    tomosbornesretirementcostjoepaatitle says:
    Your argument does not take into account the financial increases owners are facing due to increased expenditures (hello bad economy) on venues and operating costs. These guys will STILL be making more money in the future (based on continued growth) if they chopped a percentage off of their cut of revenue sharing.

    Interesting screen name. :)

    The owners weren’t looking for the players to cut their percentage. In the previous deal the owners got the first billion, and then the players got 59% of the rest. After opting out of the CBA the owners were asking for the first TWO billion, with the percentage remaining the same afterward.

    I’m going to C&P this next part, since I’ll be using it in almost every thread I participate in:

    The owners want a revenue sharing plan (salary cap) to ensure labor cost certainty. If I were running the NFLPA my take on that would be simple- I’d talk about it, but if the players weren’t getting a satisfactory cut of those revenues, I would reject revenue sharing altogether in favor of a free market system.

  93. iplaybad says: May 19, 2011 1:04 PM

    There are so many comments here that it’s tough to keep up with them all.

    I work in finance. I am not completely irreplaceable, but my results typically show that I can find work elsewhere if my boss gets crazy. Thankfully I work for an amazing company now that rewards its employees handsomely.

    I don’t get a chance to post a lot; but, what I really want to know is: how do we want to perceive the players? If the players are, as described, contractors or at-will employees of the NFL, then there are certain ramifications that stem from that point of view.

    You cannot maintain systems like drafts, salary caps, or limits to free agency if the players are simply employees. At-will employment relationships demand as much since its a reciprocal deal. If you don’t throw Andre Johnson the ball enough in Houston, I’m sure Jerry Jones would welcome him in Dallas with open arms. Jim Irsay to cut Peyton Manning? Mr. Snyder in Washington may have a few million to offer.

    Disband the NFL? I’m sure there will be others like Mark Cuban who’d be happy to found a player friendly football league. The NFL is successful because of the crazy talent level of the players. Why do you think that the DirecTv banners show players lined up in their print ads? Why do they have Peyton and Eli doing their promos? Why does ESPN pump up players first and then teams to promote MNF? Yes, I get it that Green Bay got lucky and was able to replace a legend with a stud. Ask how the folks of Denver, Miami, Buffalo, and Cleveland feel about replacing legendary players. If you give me one example of a team that can persevere I’ll give you 4-5 others that struggle to even make the playoffs.

    Count the number of guys who play in the NFL in total (appx 2K) and compare that to the number of guys who play college football every year (appx 20K) or other leagues (5-10K). Why don’t those guys make it while the others do? T-A-L-E-N-T.

    If you want capitalism, here’s what it does to our beloved game.

Leave a Reply

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