Union moved on revenue issue in December


The ongoing labor negotiations between the NFL and the players’ union are unfolding in various ways.  Formal, full-blown bargaining sessions occur infrequently.  Meetings of subcommittees addressing the various and sundry issues between the two sides are happening more often.  Communications, verbally and in writing, are being exchanged all the time.

Publicly, the two sides are trying to drive public opinion on some issues while at the same time withholding information that, for whatever reason, they choose not to disclose.  For example, the union filed a collusion claim last week, but the union has declined to date to acknowledge that the filing was made.

According to Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Daily, the NFLPA made a concession regarding the revenue split between the league and the players in December.  The union first revealed the proposal last week.

The proposal gives the owners more credit for investments in the game, like stadium construction. It also seeks continuation of the league’s supplemental revenue sharing plan, with adjustments aimed at making the plan more acceptable to the high-revenue teams that routinely grouse about having to share the fruits of their entrepreneurial endeavors with franchises not willing to spend money in order to make money.

One of the primary sticking points between the two sides has arisen from the league’s desire to shrink the size of the slice that the players receive, in the hopes of growing the entire pie.  The players have resisted any reduction, demanding justification for shrinkage via the disclosure of financial records.

The proposal also adjusts the salary cap in a way that creates incentives to invest in stadiums and other revenue-generating activities.

Jay Glazer of FOX reported that the two sides will meet later this week, or possibly next week.  The owners are meeting today in Atlanta.

Hopefully, the proposal quietly made last month will help move the parties toward a new deal.

14 responses to “Union moved on revenue issue in December

  1. I really don’t care who gets paid or how much…………I just want my football in September!

  2. “For example, the union filed a collusion claim last week, but the union has declined to date to acknowledge that the filing was made.”

    2 sentences later, “The union first revealed the proposal last week.”

  3. This is by far the smartest thing I have heard about being done by the NFLPA since this started 2 years ago. They crafted a plan that bassically gives the rich owners what they want, credit towards the cap for spending big on stadiums and creating revenue, while keeping that credit seperate so they don’t have to give up nearly as much money.

    I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It shows the NFLPA can negotiate intelligently, but sadly that might make a long work stoppage more likely.

  4. OMG they’re worried about over paying players when they would lose more money to have no football

  5. The video has drawn criticism but the only people Jan is critical of today are those creating the chatter.

    “I am very unhappy with people making so much out of this, because this really isn’t that big of a deal. It’s up to the players to decide who they want to give an autograph to, and that’s their prerogative.”

  6. Goodell offered to meet privately with Smith in the foyer to discuss some issues. But DeMo couldn’t see the point of going all the way to France for a meeting.

  7. As long as it’s a 16 game schedule… I’m on board. 18 games is too damn many. Imagine being a Lions fan a few years ago, instead of 0-16, you have to sit through another 2 or 3 weeks (depending on how many by weeks are involved) so that you can see the Lions be 0-18

  8. pftmz says:

    “For example, the union filed a collusion claim last week, but the union has declined to date to acknowledge that the filing was made.”

    2 sentences later, “The union first revealed the proposal last week.”

    The proposal was in regards to the revenue split, not collusion….reading is fundamental.

  9. I’m glad the NFLPA is being responsible and making concessions that give up a share of the pie in a way that rewards innovative teams and teams that invest in their stadiums. They need to work together with the Owners so as not to spoil the terrific product we’ve got here.

  10. It’s not about the owners investing in their stadiums as much as it’s owner who have no viable revenue streams AND who can’t get cities to pay for their palaces. As I keep saying, I’d love to see Jerry Jones go to Minnesota and try to get a stadium built there. I’d love to see him to go Detroit and try to find revenue streams that don’t exist NOW. I’d love to see him head to Tampa and try to not only build a new stadium but fill it while doubling the prices of tickets and throwing out long time ticket holders from their seats because they can’t afford to pay for them.

    I understand what Jones and them were crying about years ago but Cincinnati got their palace, as did Cleveland and Pittsburgh. After that, they have no control over the economic conditions, which aren’t as good as they are in Dallas and they certainly don’t have access to the same revenue streams or sponsors like they do in Dallas. All that the players did was agree to make the rich, richer and make the poor, poorer.

  11. As a business owner, I cannot overpay an employee. The value they bring will be negociated up-front. If you don’t like my offer, don’t accept it.

    I am the OWNER!

  12. goodell is a pawn! jery jones moves him, loses him & gets something else!!!!!!!!!! if the owners lock them out i”ll be the first to never watch a game again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! f#ck those billionares

  13. Shouldn´t there be some sort of Seinfeld comment attached to: “justification for shrinkage” ?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.