Skip to content

Supreme Court reversal of lockout ruling will be a longshot

Prince Charles descends the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court with Breyer after a reception for Marshall scholarship alumni in Washington Reuters

Before we delve into the 89-page brief filed by the players in defense of the 89-page ruling from Judge Susan Nelson (I almost accidentally typed Susan Olsen), let’s address a question that has been raised by various readers over the past few weeks via e-mail and Twitter.

After the Eighth Circuit issues a decision on whether the lockout will be lifted, will the case go to the U.S. Supreme Court?

The easy answer is that whoever loses undoubtedly will attempt to take the case to the Supreme Court.  Far more complicated is whether the Supreme Court would agree to take the case, whether the ruling would be overturned, and most importantly how long it would all take.

According to the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court receives roughly 7,000 requests per year, accepting roughly 170.  That’s a success rate of only 2.5 percent to even get in the door.

In many cases, the Supreme Court chooses to get involved when a split of opinion has emerged in the various Circuit Courts.  If, for example, the Eighth Circuit concludes that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not permit federal judges to prevent lockouts even where a union has decertified, the Supreme Court could look to the question of whether the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C., or Federal Circuits have issued a different ruling on the same or similar facts.  If there is no split among the Circuit Courts, the Supreme Court is far less likely to take the case.

Possibly making it less likely that the Supreme Court would get involved now is the fact that any ruling from the Eighth Circuit wouldn’t be a final disposition of the case.  In other words, the Eighth Circuit wouldn’t be dismissing the lawsuit based on the Norris-LaGuardia Act; instead, the Eighth Circuit would be concluding that Judge Nelson didn’t properly apply the factors for determining whether the players are entitled to a lifting of the lockout while the antitrust lawsuit proceeds.  The case would then proceed.

Even if the Supreme Court were to take the case, the nine judges currently have a distinct conservative tilt, which means that the best realistic hope for the players could be a 5-4 decision upholding a decision to permit the lockout to proceed.  If, on the other hand, the Eighth Circuit scuttles the lockout, the NFL would be more likely to secure a favorable outcome, if it can first get the Supreme Court to take the case.

Finally, time will be a significant issue.  No matter how loudly NFLPA* leadership bangs on the table and vows to take this matter to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court soon will adjourn until October 2011, and the Supreme Court most likely will move thereafter at its own pace.  Thus, to the extent that players may be led to believe that remaining unified and giving up game checks in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court:  (1) takes the case; and (2) lifts the lockout, it’s highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would issue a ruling before the 2011 season has been completely lost.

Bottom line?  For all practical purposes, the party that loses before the Eighth Circuit regarding the lifting of the lockout needs to release its grip on Plan A and move on to Plan B.  If, as expected, the Eighth Circuit allows the lockout to stand, the question for the players will be whether Plan B entails negotiating a new labor deal and getting back to football — or searching for the next potential leverage point via litigation and sacrificing a full year or more of their careers.

We can’t imagine that more than half of the league’s current players would choose the latter, if the options are explained to them in an honest and direct fashion by the folks who are being paid to protect and advance the players’ best interests.

Permalink 58 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
58 Responses to “Supreme Court reversal of lockout ruling will be a longshot”
  1. eaglesfan290 says: May 21, 2011 11:56 AM

    Well I hope the players read this blog, because I don’t have a feeling they have been getting good or honest advice!

    I also have a feeling that many went along to get along and not look bad.

  2. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 21, 2011 11:58 AM

    The 8th Circuit Judges and the Supreme Court Judges are CLEARLY more educated and knowledgeable about the law than those two blatantantly biased judges Doty and Nelson.

    In fact they should be disbarred for being so clearly behind the players that they ignored law and put their own interests before the law.

    Doty and Nelson are just enamored and have such big crushes on the players. He is senile, and she only took up law cause she couldn’t clean, cook, or keep a man. In fact when they are in court hearing arguments and watching the players, they aren’t even paying attention to the arguments cause they are tending to themselves under their robes, if ya know what I mean.

  3. thetooloftools says: May 21, 2011 12:01 PM

    I am so blessed to live in a country that is fighting a “war on terror” on two fronts, massive unemployment, and huge deficits to have a court system tied up to focus on this….. I can’t even finish this post I am so damn disgusted with everyone involved in this drama.

  4. eagleswin says: May 21, 2011 12:03 PM

    We can’t imagine that more than half of the league’s current players would choose the latter, if the options are explained to them in an honest and direct fashion by the folks who are being paid to protect and advance the players’ best interests.

    ——————————–

    The odds of the players suddenly having an interest in knowing the particulars of the lawsuit and actually receiving clear, concise, and accurate responses from their leadership are slightly worse than winning the lottery.

    Also, since they are technically no longer a “union”, as long as Brady, Manning, Brees, etc. want to continue the lawsuit, the rank and file are irrelevent. They gave up their right to have a say in the proceedings so if it goes badly for them, they deserve what they get.

  5. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 21, 2011 12:06 PM

    It’s all part of the plan. The league knew it would prevail on any issue before the 8th Circuit and knows it will prevail any challenge to the Supreme Court.

    That’s why it doesn’t care one bit about what Doty or Nelson decide, because the league is going to go straight over their biased heads.

    Face it pro-player bleeding hearts. The players have very little leverage and soon will have ZERO leverage. DEmo Smith is just racking up billable hours on the greedy players and they are too stupid to see he doesn’t care about their interests.
    The owners are going to teach these greedy, ungrateful, law breaking hoodlums a tough lesson
    and make sure they regret ever hiring the ambulance chaser.
    The are going to make sure those idiots like Chester Pitts, Mendenhall, Mason, Peterson all pay a price for their actions.

    Ahh it feels great to be in control!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. xtb3 says: May 21, 2011 12:18 PM

    owners and players both will pay bigtime for this greed at a time when so many of their longtime fans are in financial difficulty.

    and it will liook good on them especially on the owners who inherited their teams because of daddies money of long ago. earned when there was no taxes.

  7. crimhollingsworth says: May 21, 2011 12:20 PM

    Drew Brees’ plan B is to SUE SUE SUE!!!

  8. warmachine2112 says: May 21, 2011 12:21 PM

    It’s sad that the process has traveled this route and reached this point.

    Here’s to Plan B being “negotiate like grown-ups”…

  9. buzmeg says: May 21, 2011 12:24 PM

    @thetooloftools who said: I am so blessed to live in a country that is fighting a “war on terror” on two fronts, massive unemployment, and huge deficits to have a court system tied up to focus on this….. I can’t even finish this post I am so damn disgusted with everyone involved in this drama.
    =============================================
    Doesn’t this “drama” have a profound impact on massive unemployment, not just the players but all the peripheral jobs that it has affected and “huge deficits” in the form of millions of tax dollars not being collected by local and federal governments.

    This lockout has a much more widespread impact on the USA as a whole than just being without football.

  10. realitypolice says: May 21, 2011 12:28 PM

    For all practical purposes, the party that loses before the Eighth Circuit regarding the lifting of the lockout needs to release its grip on Plan A and move on to Plan B.
    =======================

    As I have been saying all along, this is and has been both sides’ plans from the time they first formulated their strategies 2 years ago.

    All of the public pronouncements and hand wringing has been a show for the public since the beginning.

    Both sides are looking for leverage, and whoever wins in the 8th Circuit will have it. The other side will adjust it’s strategy, and the deal will get done.

    Sometime between now and the ruling, both sides will claim publicly that they will appeal to the Supreme Court if they lose.

    This is nonsense. Both sides know the Supreme Court will never take this case.

    Let the Chicken Little thumbs-down parade begin.

  11. scudbot says: May 21, 2011 12:32 PM

    “if the options are explained to them in an honest and direct fashion by the folks who are being paid to protect and advance the players’ best interests.” Dreamer.

  12. Patriot42 says: May 21, 2011 12:34 PM

    Maybe we all can live without NFL football as fans we feel it is impossible but as each week passes after the seasons was suppose to start we will find other things to do. Maybe another league.

  13. harmcityhomer says: May 21, 2011 12:38 PM

    “We can’t imagine?” So you think more than half the current players would reform the union and accept whatever the CBA offer is on the table if they are facing the propsect of missing a game check or even a single season?

    I doubt it, and here is why. There are what seems to be conflicting ideas about the players position. A, the owners feel they make too much money based on the 2006 CBA, and B, they can not afford to miss a game check and would fold fast when the money stops rolling in.

    Sure a few players are going to go broke, even with the 60K in lockout insurance and the possibility of more coming eventually from a judgement in the TV case, however, it seems unlikely that more than half the players would be unable to afford missing a season of football. Many be unwilling/ unhappy but as long as the long term win is still available, I doubt that as many as the needed half would break ranks and reform the union.

    The fans may need football, but I think both the owners and players are prepared for a long legal battle over the 10-15 billion per year the NFL expects to generate over the next decade.

    Also the American Needle case got to the Supreme Court, so maybe the court does have more of an interest in the NFL cases than the average case.

  14. jbcommonsense says: May 21, 2011 12:41 PM

    The players ARE pro football, which is built in leverage. Sure the players should moderate their stance somewhat after the appellate court’s decision, but not that much. Just go to their ultimate position, and if owners don’t agree to it, walk away. And mean it. The end.

  15. nflfan101 says: May 21, 2011 12:44 PM

    PFT said: “Even if the Supreme Court were to take the case, the nine judges currently have a distinct conservative tilt …”
    ————————————

    That is BS and just a myth repeated by liberals. The Supreme Court is SPLIT and often rules in favor of liberals instead of applying the law. I can give a lot of examples, but this is not the place. This suppose to be about football and the NFL.

    You are right that this mess going to the Supreme Court is a long shot. However, D. Smith is a litigator, not a negotiator, and I am sure that his liberal buddies on the Supreme Court will help him if they can.

    FACT: D. Smith walked out of CBA negotiations, decertified the union, had certain players file suit, and then did not attend at least one court ordered mediation session.

    Fans, players, and PFT employees that treally want football need to tell D. Smith to get his butt into negotiations.

  16. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 21, 2011 12:50 PM

    Below is an actual quote in the players filing on Friday to the court per espn;;;;;;

    “The players face immediate, continuing, severe irreparable injury from unlawful conduct orchestrated to force them to re-unionize against their will and make immense financial concessions,” the players’ attorneys wrote. “The NFL, by contrast, claims only a temporary loss of leverage by members of a cartel that is no longer entitled to any exemption from the antitrust laws.”

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

    So now the players are calling the owners and league a CARETEL!!!
    Furthermore, DEmo Smith is claiming that the owners are trying to FORCE the players to RE-UNIONIZE against their will.

    OMG!
    Does this DEmo character have any shame? Do these players?

    They pull a sham decertification, and now claim the league is forcing them against their will to recertify.
    And some people actually are on the players and that ambulance chasers side?
    Wow, I knew that DEmo was a shady snake and some of these players were two-faced ungrateful hypocrits, but they both have really shown how pathetic they are now

  17. shieldsisland37 says: May 21, 2011 12:53 PM

    No way the SC grants Cert here. No way. They have more important stuff to do then settle a labor dispute.

  18. oldbyrd says: May 21, 2011 12:55 PM

    That’s ok there is still D” Moron to take up the fight. How’s that workin out for you.? Good old Unions…..USELESS NEVER ENDING TROUBLE MAKERS

  19. jimphin says: May 21, 2011 1:01 PM

    “…if the options are explained to them in an honest and direct fashion by the folks who are being paid to protect and advance the players’ best interests…”

    Honestly, have we really seen any remote evidence of this possibility? The players seem to have embraced some type of Charlie Sheen version of winning. (“with zeal, focus, and vilent hatred”)

  20. pixelito says: May 21, 2011 1:04 PM

    The 8th Circuit Judges and the Supreme Court Judges are CLEARLY more educated and knowledgeable about the law than those two blatantantly biased judges Doty and Nelson.

    In fact they should be disbarred for being so clearly behind the players that they ignored law and put their own interests before the law.

    Doty and Nelson are just enamored and have such big crushes on the players. He is senile, and she only took up law cause she couldn’t clean, cook, or keep a man. In fact when they are in court hearing arguments and watching the players, they aren’t even paying attention to the arguments cause they are tending to themselves under their robes, if ya know what I mean.

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

    I think your pecker got even smaller ;)

  21. bmac187 says: May 21, 2011 1:09 PM

    TWO THINGS:

    1. “the Supreme Court soon will adjourn until October 2011″

    What world am I living in? They really need a vacation for the whole summer? Does anyone else find this ridiculous, especially since we pay there salary?

    2. @iamtalkingsolistenandlearn: do you know you’re racist and sexist, or are you in denial about it?

  22. dan1919 says: May 21, 2011 1:18 PM

    Here is a problem: A conservative Supreme Court would rule in favor of free markets. IMO, that means they would rule in favor of the players.

    I don’t see how a monopoly gets to run a socialized system and get away with it.

    Oh the contradictions with what Conservatives believe.

  23. tommyf15 says: May 21, 2011 1:22 PM

    thetooloftools says:
    I am so blessed to live in a country that is fighting a “war on terror” on two fronts, massive unemployment, and huge deficits to have a court system tied up to focus on this…..

    If it’s so irrelevant, why are you following the situation and posting about it?

    And yeah, iamtalkingsolistenandlearn is racist and sexist, no sarcasm here. He acts as if Judge Nelson is stupid because she’s a woman, and DeMauruce Smith is a pimp because he’s black.

  24. narutofan10 says: May 21, 2011 1:23 PM

    Maybe we all can live without NFL football as fans we feel it is impossible but as each week passes after the seasons was suppose to start we will find other things to do. Maybe another league.
    ————————————————————
    nope

  25. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: May 21, 2011 1:26 PM

    The NFL has nothing to gain and potentially lot to lose by starting the league year before the Tom Brady case is dropped or decided/appealed/decided/appealed/decided/appealed/decided.

    De Mo Reece has let the players down the path to financial ruin and the is nothing they can do to stop it until the Tom Brady case is over. The players don’t seem to understand this.

    If De Mo Reece didn’t advise the players of the potential for a multi-year Federal Court battle before they de-certified, is De Mo potentially at risk for a malpractice suit?

  26. geo1113 says: May 21, 2011 1:27 PM

    bmac187 says:

    What world am I living in? They really need a vacation for the whole summer? Does anyone else find this ridiculous, especially since we pay there salary?
    __________________________

    The court is in recess. That doesn’t mean it is a summer vacation. During that time, the court is analyzing new petitions, accept and consider new motions, and prepare for cases that will be made after the recess. They work during the summer recess.

  27. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 21, 2011 1:33 PM

    @bmac

    Everyone has a right to their opinion.
    My opinion is you are a douche, and I don’t care one cent what your opinion is of me.

    @pixelito

    Your momma doesn’t think so. wink wink
    Who’s your daddy?

  28. ravensfan4life52 says: May 21, 2011 1:39 PM

    @bmac187

    ok i understand how you can call @iamtalkingsolistenandlearn a sexist (even though I’m sure he was just making a joke), but what did he say that was racist? maybe i missed something.

  29. seatown12 says: May 21, 2011 1:53 PM

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
    and I’m not sure about the universe.

    – Albert Einstein

  30. possiblecabbage says: May 21, 2011 1:55 PM

    The other thing worth noting is that if the Supreme Court were to take the case, then the season would almost assuredly be lost. The cases the court hears in the fall, they don’t rule on until the spring. There are several cases the Supreme Court heard last November where we’re still waiting for a decision.

    So regardless of your dog in this fight, football fans shouldn’t want the supreme court to take this case, since that would pretty much guarantee we miss the season.

  31. zxcvbnmjhgfdsa says: May 21, 2011 1:56 PM

    D’Morris is driving the bus off the cliff.

    He cannot take less than what Gene U. got under the last deal. Using Mike F.’s ’50 cents on every dollar’ figure under the current deal, that means D’Morris cannot take 49 cents. Otherwise, he’ll be forever known as the first NFLPA head to get less for the players (lower percent), … even if it really is more – in total dollars.

    The problem is the owners will not agree again to 50% for the players.

    Don’t any of the players have friends in the NHL (who had all their Sundays ((and Saturdays, and Fridays, and …)) off a few years ago.)?

  32. mashoaf says: May 21, 2011 2:15 PM

    After seeing a comment by the players calling the owners a cartel, I’ve had enough of their wining. They are acting like spoiled brats who had their trust funds cut off. If they keep on acting up they will need to cautious of the words they use and actions they take. The Owners could get fed up and pull the nuclear option and shut down operations until further notice. I’ve thought for a long time that the nuclear option would be terrible for football, but it seems more and more like it is the only sensible way to get the two parties to agree on things.

  33. jbcommonsense says: May 21, 2011 2:16 PM

    Of course NFL players are not entitled to their jobs — they win them through incredibly difficult athletic competition.

    What the players ARE entitled to is to collectively bargain for a fair share of the profits. Check out the salaries players in the NBA make, with far less risk to their bodies.

    What owners ARE NOT entitled to is a rapid growth rate in their profits. The owners are making great profits now on a relatively simple investment with practically NO risk. That’s probably why they refuse to open their books.

    People here have tried to make the argument that the owners’ position is about the sustainability of the game. How so? Both sides have agreed to a team salary cap — http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/exclusive-summary-of-nfl-proposal-to-nflpa/

    Polls show that a majority of football fans primarily blame the owners for the lockout endangering football. It’s obvious that PFT was right about bored, resentful league employees flooding posts here. Real fans understand the facts described above. They are not buying the owners’ distortions.

  34. geo1113 says: May 21, 2011 2:30 PM

    dan1919 says:
    May 21, 2011 1:18 PM
    Here is a problem: A conservative Supreme Court would rule in favor of free markets. IMO, that means they would rule in favor of the players.

    I don’t see how a monopoly gets to run a socialized system and get away with it.

    Oh the contradictions with what Conservatives believe.
    __________________

    I have no idea how the Court would rule. But in the American Needle case, the opinion did recognize that the nature of the NFL required some cooperation amongs its members. Also, the NFL is not a monopoly. It is a business league recognized under the IRS to promote a common interest. Also, there is what is called the “rule of reason” when applying the Sherman Act. What that means is that the consequences of a challenged action, e.g. the franchise tag, are weighed against the business justification of such a practice. The mere fact that such a rule exists recognizes that there are cisrumstances when a strict interpreation of free markets do not serve the business industry as a whole.

  35. geo1113 says: May 21, 2011 2:56 PM

    People here have tried to make the argument that the owners’ position is about the sustainability of the game. How so? Both sides have agreed to a team salary cap — http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/exclusive-summary-of-nfl-proposal-to-nflpa/
    _______________________

    So then. What’s the problem the players have???

  36. ravensfan4life52 says: May 21, 2011 3:03 PM

    @jbcommonsense

    yeah just a heads up. whenever you reference nfllabor.com in your posts you loose all credibility.

  37. commandercornpone says: May 21, 2011 3:14 PM

    it doesnt take 50% of the players. it takes a willing vocal number to start complaining loudly.

    hello stampede.

    better yet, it takes an “oakley-ewing” moment. the union* at this point is like the nbapa was awhile back when a small # of elite players basically banded up with union* leadership. and then came close to getting beat to death by the rank and file.

  38. airraid77 says: May 21, 2011 3:40 PM

    the owners have every right, as do the players to pursue whatever profit growth they can get.
    their is nothing wrong with profits or obscene profits.

  39. dan1919 says: May 21, 2011 4:03 PM

    Geo1113…

    The american needle case ruled that all 32 franchises have made their own deals. Therefore the NFL cant give just 1 deal to Nike. That makes them a monopoly.

    NFL is socialism. I love socialism in the NFL. I wish the players would accept the deal. I just dont know why the last deal signed was so bad. Take Tampa Bay. They signed contracts where no money would be paid out and actually end up below the minimum cap.

    The Owners could do the same if they needed more money. I dont get why they need the extra 2B, is what i dont get.

    Players are giving up the rookie salary cap.. compromise on 1.5 billion. sign the damn deal.

  40. depotnator says: May 21, 2011 4:03 PM

    If the players appeal this matter to the Supreme Court, it increases the public outrage – and likely involvement of Congressional scrutiny. At a Congressional level, anti-trust issues are not a simple 2-1 judicial vote. Congressmen – and Senators – are more accountable to their public constituency. And with the pubic and small business impact, there will be a much larger forum on the secret financial statements of the owners.

  41. depotnator says: May 21, 2011 4:05 PM

    Why are some posts that reference URLs deleted, while others are allowed?

  42. raider8er says: May 21, 2011 4:10 PM

    “That is BS and just a myth repeated by liberals. The Supreme Court is SPLIT and often rules in favor of liberals instead of applying the law. I can give a lot of examples, but this is not the place. This suppose to be about football and the NFL.”

    Well glad FoxNews showed up to comment.

    The court is split 4 republican and 4 democrat leaning judges. However, there are 9 judges and Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote and he voted for Citizens United which gave corporations no restrictions to campaign contributions. Plus, Chief Justice Roberts has NEVER EVER ruled against a corporation in favor of the little guy.

  43. depotnator says: May 21, 2011 4:11 PM

    “Also, the NFL is not a monopoly. It is a business league recognized under the IRS to promote a common interest”

    The NFL has been granted a Congressional anti-trust exemption for negotiating league TV contracts. That exemption can be revoked if Congress believes the league is not operating in the public interest. Someone has to explain to most fans how a lockout is in the public interest.

  44. jimmysee says: May 21, 2011 4:26 PM

    Not only do players lose a year of their careers, but when training camps finally open, they are competing for their jobs with TWO YEARS of draft choices, not one.

  45. oldbyrd says: May 21, 2011 4:26 PM

    He, she, its a racist that’s a new word.we should start using it. Seems to me the last head of the NFLPA was a very well respected man. Now I did it. I ll be called a racist too. It’s just a shame that only black’s voted for our President. Stop with the racist crap…please

  46. liontomyself says: May 21, 2011 4:27 PM

    jbcommonsense says:May 21, 2011 2:16 PM

    What the players ARE entitled to is to collectively bargain for a fair share of the profits.

    What owners ARE NOT entitled to is a rapid growth rate in their profits.
    _____________________________

    And there is the problem. When do the players plan to start this “collectively bargain” thing you speak of?

    It doesn’t matter what the players (nor owners) want. There is no CBA and there will be no CBA until they “collectively bargain”…….2 offers put forward (I don’t care how bad) by the owners and not one counter offer made by the players.

    If they want what they are “entitled to”, they need to start negotiating.

  47. bobbyhoying says: May 21, 2011 4:48 PM

    If the players really believe the owners have a great deal, why not start their own league? They’re locked out, so kiss the owners good bye and form the new league. That way they could keep 100% of the revenue. What’s wrong with that plan players?

  48. jbcommonsense says: May 21, 2011 5:05 PM

    @geo1113 wrote: “So then. What’s the problem the players have???”

    ________________________

    Collectively the league’s position would take
    $1 billion away from the players share of profits. Nobody would accept such a proposal; and when the players turned it down they were locked out.

    The current leverage isn’t as unequal as some characterize it. The players ARE NFL football. The owners have the cash.

    Fans will side with players unless owners make concessions. If the owners DO make concessions, fans will expect players to reciprocate.

    If owners never make concessions, they will lose good will and a huge chunk of profits for years. That is truly the bottom line.

  49. usmutts says: May 21, 2011 5:20 PM

    Yes, it was this very liberal Supreme Court that violated it’s own precedents to hand the election to that liberal George Bush in 2000. Yes, they’re so liberal.

    Except for that liberal Scalia, the liberal Thomas is probably the worst Justice in the history of this country. Thomas is so liberally dumb that he hasn’t had the courage to speak a single word in open court in over five years.

    If this case gets to the Supreme Court the players have no chance whatever.

  50. eagleswin says: May 21, 2011 5:22 PM

    jbcommonsense says:
    May 21, 2011 5:05 PM
    @geo1113 wrote: “So then. What’s the problem the players have???”

    ________________________

    Collectively the league’s position would take
    $1 billion away from the players share of profits. Nobody would accept such a proposal; and when the players turned it down they were locked out.

    The current leverage isn’t as unequal as some characterize it. The players ARE NFL football. The owners have the cash.

    Fans will side with players unless owners make concessions. If the owners DO make concessions, fans will expect players to reciprocate.

    If owners never make concessions, they will lose good will and a huge chunk of profits for years. That is truly the bottom line.
    —————————
    This is another inaccurate post.

    The owners want another $1 bill of the REVENUE, not the PROFITS. Huge difference, please look up the definitions of each if needed. Out of that $1 billion only approx. $590 mill would’ve gone towards the salary cap so the actual number that affects the players is smaller than the larger round number.

    The owners did make concessions. They reduced the amount of money they are asking for as well as increasing benefits for injured and retired players. They also took 18 games off the table which they were well within their rights to implement unilaterly. The problem is that player supporters don’t acknowledge these very real concessions as shown in this post. Acting as if the owners never moved off their original proposal which is false.

  51. airraid77 says: May 21, 2011 5:32 PM

    anybody who thinks owners losing their anti trust exemptions is good for the players has another thing coming.
    Fox news compared to the raving lunatics on the alphabet news networks, cn-,ab,ms,cb, NB….what is that 5-1. those 5 running socialist propaganda 24/7. Please stop banging on fox.
    and those who think owners having to open their books will stop with the rich also have another thing coming….crap rolls down hill.

  52. pallidrone says: May 21, 2011 5:49 PM

    @jbcommonsense

    If in 2006 the players agreed to the owners taking $1 billion off the top of $5.2 billion before splitting it to cover expenses, then why is it such an outrage now the owners want $2 billion off the top of $9.5 billion?

    Expenses have gone up, stadium are not getting cheaper to build and if this money does not get cut from the players then the extra will have to come from somewhere, and that means the FANS pockets.

    There are fans like myself, who are in the side of the owners, because it is becoming impossible to go to games anymore.

  53. willycents says: May 21, 2011 6:15 PM

    jbcommonsense says:May 21, 2011 2:16 PM

    What the players ARE entitled to is to collectively bargain for a fair share of the profits.
    —————————————————

    Uhhhh…Wait a minute you genius. The players abdicated their right to collectively bargain when they de-certified. Please, in all your evident knowledge, advise we other posters of exactly what entity representing the players that the owners can sit and collectively bargain with? What entity now represents the rank and file of the players? Collective bargaining between owners and employees by nature of the word requires that the employees have an organization to bargain in their interests.
    Are you saying that the NFLPA is still the bargaining organization?

  54. FinFan68 says: May 21, 2011 7:12 PM

    jbcommonsense says:
    May 21, 2011 2:16 PM
    Of course NFL players are not entitled to their jobs — they win them through incredibly difficult athletic competition.

    What the players ARE entitled to is to collectively bargain for a fair share of the profits
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    That last statement is the fundamental flaw in the players supporters’ logic. They are entitled to fair compensation for the services they provide, not a “fair share of the profits”. I believe the players’ compensation should rise as the business grows but not as quickly as they have been. Getting a 5% raise instead of a 10% raise is not a pay cut. I think the owners’ latest published proposal was more than fair and included several concessions on the part of the owners. This whole thing is a huge mess but the league has kept steady with what they want while the players leadership has made several contradictory and some blatantly false arguments. The players would be wise to admit their mistake and replace Smith before the damage is permanent.

  55. voyager6 says: May 21, 2011 7:49 PM

    I keep saying, just have Congress pass a 100 percent tax on sporting (owners and players) over $1Million.

    Instant Settlement: No need to bicker on share. It all goes to the government, where it is needed!

  56. zxcvbnmjhgfdsa says: May 21, 2011 8:15 PM

    Fan68,

    You’re overlooking the fact that the players consider themselves partners, not employees, and want to be paid as such. They do have an argument. They are the product.

  57. FinFan68 says: May 21, 2011 9:28 PM

    zxcvbnmjhgfdsa says:
    May 21, 2011 8:15 PM
    Fan68,

    You’re overlooking the fact that the players consider themselves partners, not employees, and want to be paid as such. They do have an argument. They are the product.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I disagree. I believe the game itself is the product. A collection of competitive teams playing the game we all love is the product. Players have been and will always be part of that equation but these particular players are temporary beneficiaries. No player is irreplaceable. Not, Brady, not Manning, Not Rodgers, Peterson, Fitzgerald, Peppers… They all replaced other players and they themselves will be replaced. Fans do not shift their loyalties because their star player got traded, retired, or left via free agency. The team moves on; the league moves on. Sometimes it takes time (yeah, still waiting for a stellar season out of a Miami QB), but new players always rise up and become stars.

    Many people consider themselves “king of their castle” too but that doesn’t make them kings nor does it make their home a castle.

    Here is an excerpt from the preamble to the last CBA. Please note how it refers to players as employees…

    and the National Football League Players Association (“NFLPA”), which is recognized
    as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of present and future employee players in the NFL in a bargaining unit described as follows:

    1. All professional football players employed by a member club of the National Football League;

    2. All professional football players who have been previously employed by a member club of the National Football League who are seeking
    employment with an NFL Club;

    3. All rookie players once they are selected in the current year’s NFL College Draft; and

    4. All undrafted rookie players once they commence negotiation with an NFL Club concerning employment as a player.

    Considering oneself to be a “partner” does not make it so.

  58. jbcommonsense says: May 22, 2011 1:30 AM

    liontomyself wrote: “If they want what they are “entitled to”, they need to start negotiating.”

    _________________________

    Honestly, I don’t really disagree with that. Waiting for the courts’ decisions made sense. Now it’s time for each side to see how much they are willing to give.

    Whichever side shows greater sign of willingness to make concessions will win fan support. But make no mistake, unless the owners’ position is more reasonable the payers will turn them down and walk away.

Leave a Reply

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