Skip to content

Opt out clause still lingers

electric-plug

Not long after word broke on Saturday afternoon of the NFLPA* Executive Committee’s decision to vote on the proposed labor agreement on Monday, we heard that the open issue regarding the duration of the deal had been resolved, and that the contract would cover a full 10 years, with no opt out.

Multiple sources now tell PFT that the issue remains open.

As we explained Saturday, it shouldn’t.  The players receive a guaranteed percentage of revenue over the life of the contract.  Long-term stability maximizes revenues not only from the TV networks but also from sponsors and anyone else who would prefer to see long-term labor peace before coughing up long-term megabucks.

Also, let’s not underestimate the value of a 10-year deal to the important process of mending fences with the fans.

We’ve yet to hear a compelling argument in favor of the ability to pull the plug, which reinforces our belief that the players want it simply because the owners don’t — and/or because the owners had it and used it in the last labor deal.

Then there’s the fact that the players loudly have complained whenever the league has allegedly (or actually) reneged on a term that was supposedly settled.  In this case, we’re told that this point was settled, and that at the 11th (or as the case may be 12th) hour the players raised the possibility of an early out clause.

Under the proposed deal, the players will 48 percent of the gross, with no limit.  And the bar will only go higher and higher, especially once true long-term labor peace has been restored.  If there’s any legitimate reason to have the ability to pull the plug after 10 years, we’d love to hear it.

Permalink 33 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
33 Responses to “Opt out clause still lingers”
  1. steelfla says: Jul 24, 2011 2:34 PM

    Like my dad and Roseanne Roseanna Dana used to say,”it’s always something.If it’s not one thing,it’s another.”

  2. clayjayhawk says: Jul 24, 2011 2:34 PM

    If they pull the plug then nobody will have to watch Jared Allen pretend to stir a pot of soup. That’s reason enough to not have football. But, if we are stuck with him then Go Packers!

  3. pantherfan89 says: Jul 24, 2011 2:36 PM

    ugh duh, the reason is, well, you see, i mean of course its because, uh, well, ummm…. I just want more money. Dang is it that hard to understand?

  4. pfatl says: Jul 24, 2011 2:38 PM

    The players want it because the owners demonstrated that no one makes a huge deal of/holds it against the party who pulls the plug.

    This time around, the owners pulled the plug and yet a huge proportion of the readers of this site either conveniently forget or don’t care. The owners basically said, “jeez, this labor deal isn’t working out how we thought, lets pull the plug and try again.”

    So the players are sitting there thinking, we’re rolling the dice with this 48% deal. If it doesn’t work out the way we’re expecting, we may want out of this.

    I didn’t approve of the owners doing it and don’t approve of the players holding out for the provision.

    Sleep in the bed you make.

  5. mictins says: Jul 24, 2011 2:41 PM

    There it is..

  6. heroofthisparish says: Jul 24, 2011 2:46 PM

    This has had cold water thrown on it so often it may as well be water boarding.

    Get it done already!

  7. rams2011 says: Jul 24, 2011 2:49 PM

    thursdays headlines: week 1 of the preseason cancelled another week of (close) and (crossing Ts and dotting Is) then next thursdays headlines week 2 of the preseason cancelled, then more assorted bullcrap. etc etc etc

  8. mook68 says: Jul 24, 2011 2:56 PM

    This just won’t end. Y ou don’t have to worry about this stuff in the WWE…..lol

  9. everydayimfumbilin says: Jul 24, 2011 2:56 PM

    They are just messing with us now

  10. tjp2033 says: Jul 24, 2011 3:04 PM

    What dont these players understand? Longer CBA without a threat of an opt out means more money in tv deals. Which in turn means more money for the players.

  11. caseysarasota says: Jul 24, 2011 3:05 PM

    apparently so does Brett Favre.

  12. chatham10 says: Jul 24, 2011 3:07 PM

    We will hear about this “lockout” all year even after this type of thing is settled and the new CBA is signed and the reason we will keep hearing about it is when a team plays bad it will be blamed on the lockout. I look forward to next year when after the players got everything they wanted, less OTA’s, lesss practice time, no two a days and then see what new excuse they will have.

  13. silverhornet says: Jul 24, 2011 3:08 PM

    So tired… so so tired…

  14. evrybdyhas1 says: Jul 24, 2011 3:08 PM

    The opt out clause in the last CBA was the lever that allowed Gene Upshaw to force it down the owners throats. Both sides should learn from the past and be either all in or all out.
    The fans don’t want anymore of this BS.

  15. Spencer says: Jul 24, 2011 3:13 PM

    I’ll remember this for tomorrow, when there’s no vote and another delay.

  16. j0esixpack says: Jul 24, 2011 3:30 PM

    10 years = stability = more money for all

  17. CKL says: Jul 24, 2011 3:32 PM

    I can’t wait to see the details of this deal because what I have seen suggests that the players bent the owners over prison style.
    /stillangryaboutthewussificationofpracticething

  18. zizzod says: Jul 24, 2011 3:41 PM

    All the “sources” know NOTHING!

  19. valman61 says: Jul 24, 2011 3:42 PM

    As much as I hate this lockout and believe it should be over by now, I understand the opt out for players. The points against it made by this site are all valid, but my argument comes from new avenues of revenue not included in this CBA as football income. With digital media and technological advances, there may be new ways teams start making large sums of money that are not collectively bargained which they decide to keep. They have final control of the books and will have no incentive to share anything above and beyond what is included in the agreement for 10 years. If their is an opt out clause, it may give owners incentive to share a portion of any large new revenue which is not currently included in the new CBA in the hopes of avoiding more labor uncertainty and lowering tv money and other revenue directly impacted by long term labor certainty.

    In my opinion, you can solve this with a broad definition of revenue, an independent firm reviewing the revenues, and the parties agreeing to meet and review all revenues to make sure both sides are getting a fair amount. I obviously haven’t seen the new CBA, but I know historically new revenues which one side believes should not be shared while the other does generally creates labor unrest. An opt out can be used as leverage over the course of the deal for players. I don’t agree with it necessarily, but I do understand it. PFT please try to look into the CBA and see if their is a mechanism which designates either sharing or a review system of determination for new revenue streams which are earned beyond the scope of this agreement and if they will be included in the 48% of revenue sharing.

    If this agreement shares all revenue, my point is null and void. However I doubt it includes all revenues because teams generate revenue from other avenues like concerts in the stadium, interest, tax savings, and etc which typically are not classified as football operating revenue. It all hinges on the scope of the revenue which is shared and which revenues would not be included in that scope.

  20. hedleykow says: Jul 24, 2011 3:45 PM

    At some point you have to face the reality that it’s just too darn hot to practice football right now. How much intelligence does it take to figure that out? Once the outdoors temperatures settle down a bit, then it will be time to do the deal.

  21. marty2019 says: Jul 24, 2011 4:02 PM

    “If there’s any legitimate reason to have the ability to pull the plug after 10 years, we’d love to hear it.”

    I think you mean “after 7 years.” Not “after 10 years.”

  22. eagleswin says: Jul 24, 2011 4:03 PM

    I really think the lack of practices as set forth in the new CBA could be a problem. The reason most injuries happen in practice is because players are on the field more during practices than games. Once it changes to more injuries happening in games (esp. injuries which could’ve been avoided by being in better condition) people will lament the lack of practice time.

  23. istateyourname says: Jul 24, 2011 4:07 PM

    “…not underestimate the value of a 10-year deal to the important process of mending fences with the fans.”

    Ha,ha,ha, you’re so funny. Fans, what fans?
    They were going to go with free parking, but that got tabled. Try as hard as he might, the owners did not go for Demaurice’s proposal to cap the cost of a beer at $4.25.
    Hold on there, we’re not just going to sign it, the fans want us to read it…

  24. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: Jul 24, 2011 4:07 PM

    More money!

    Less practice!

    Less hitting!

    Less tackling!

    VJ lying to the fans!

    The NFLPA**** is ruining the game. Shame on them!!!!!

  25. uclabruininstlouis says: Jul 24, 2011 4:47 PM

    You know, it’ll be so much fun to insult each other again about our teams than listen to this esoteric BS.

  26. mdemay4 says: Jul 24, 2011 4:59 PM

    The fans should boycott all preseason games,

  27. thefiesty1 says: Jul 24, 2011 5:21 PM

    An addendum can be added to the CBA for the greedy players for an opt out. The owners will be agreeable when they find out in 7 years how much they gave away to the pimp and his decertified union. They can opt out again and start this ridiculus process again.

    They are all a bunch of idiots trying to screw up the best thing going.

  28. mhs8031 says: Jul 24, 2011 5:58 PM

    Posts concerning criticisms of the content on this site are screened. When say something like, “When you speculate that the deal contains no escape clause and then post articles where there will be one” I think the powers that be are simply sensationalizing the news and even rumors to get more hits on the site. If this is posted, I will be surprised

  29. narutofan10 says: Jul 24, 2011 6:53 PM

    pfatl says: Jul 24, 2011 2:38 PM

    The players want it because the owners demonstrated that no one makes a huge deal of/holds it against the party who pulls the plug.

    So the players are sitting there thinking, we’re rolling the dice with this 48% deal. If it doesn’t work out the way we’re expecting, we may want out of this.

    ————————————————-

    wait hold up are you saying there is a negative side to getting 48% of 25 BILLION DOLLARS over the next ten years…a good 10% more than any other business will give you…WTF…

  30. shawnleblancpatsfan says: Jul 24, 2011 8:23 PM

    The only reason I can think off where players would want to opt out after 7 years is the case where owners in 2013 could reduce the pre-season from 4 to 2 games. Assuming the players don’t agree to the extension of the regular season to 18 games, the salary cap would be reduced due to the reduction in total pre-season revenue. I know this would be a few years after (2017 season) but it gives them an opportunity to opt out to force to re-negotiate the revenue sharing to get a bigger piece of teh pice.

  31. bucngator says: Jul 24, 2011 10:23 PM

    If the NFLPA* and the league broke negotiations with the understanding that “they had a deal”….

    How are the players allowed to continue to negotiate ANYTHING??

    Looks to me, like the players are the one’s “slipping things in”…

    …STFU and sign the damn deal, you ungrateful and arrogant pricks!!

  32. damnyankee13 says: Jul 24, 2011 11:20 PM

    cancel the season allready

  33. pfatl says: Jul 25, 2011 11:41 AM

    @narutofan10

    Are you that stupid? YES. I am saying there is a negative side to making 48% of 25 billion over 10 years. First, 25 billion over 10 years? WTF is wrong with your math skills? Assuming that the 9 billion number (per year) that’s thrown around, even if the pie doesnt grow, we’re talking 90 billion over 10 years. Second, this deal is made given that the pie is composed of specific revenue streams. The players are making assumptions about what the total revenue streams are from which they take 48%. The owners thus have every incentive to try to find new revenue streams not within the deal. While there is nothing wrong with that, there is something wrong if the owners divert efforts to maximize revenues under the deal to seeking revenues outside the deal.

    Thus, the players could get screwed and want an opt-out provision. Again, like i said, i didnt approve of the owners pulling the plug and I dont approve of the players holding out for the ability to do so. Your stupid comment does help me to understand the basis of many people’s animosity against the players generally – they just don’t understand anything that’s going on.

    Also, you probably don’t understand why the owners opted out of the CBA. YOU MEAN THERE’S A DOWNSIDE TO THE OWNERS MAKING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS??! idiot.

Leave a Reply

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