No resolution of NFLPA’s position on 17-game CBA

Getty Images

For the second straight Thursday, the NFL Players Association Executive Committee and board of player representatives met to discuss a proposal from the NFL on a 10-year labor deal based on a 17-game regular season that would commence as early as 2021. For the second straight Thursday, the meeting did not resolve the issue one way or the other.

According to Mark Maske of the Washington Post, the group spent eight hours discussing the proposal. There was no resolution, and the internal deliberations are due to continue.

Rough deadline” of March 18 or not, the reality is that the start of the new league year gives the two sides a reason to try to resolve the situation. As does the looming election of a new NFLPA president. If Chargers tackle Russell Okung gets the title, the 17-game proposal may be flushed for good.

Then there’s the urgency to do new TV deals. In order to max out the money, it makes sense to strike now, while ratings are high and before the election eats into them. Also, a recession is possible, which could limit the size of the offers from the various corporations that will be tightening belts during tougher times that could be here by next year at this time.

The question for the union is whether the offer from the NFL will ever get any better and, if not, whether to take it now or whether to dig in for a work stoppage, something most players simply aren’t willing to endure if it means losing the ability to play football and to get paid for it. At some point before March 18, they need to make that big-picture decision.

19 responses to “No resolution of NFLPA’s position on 17-game CBA

  1. The chances should be very high that a deal is made very soon. If not, then both sides face an enormous risk that new variables enter into the equation that could create a massive disruption to closing the deal. Further near-term meetings should help to close any negotiating gaps and it would be to their mutual best interests to find a way to lock in and close this deal. Worst-case scenario they could even bring in a neutral and objective third-party negotiation counselor to help them iron out the details to make sure they secure this pact as soon as possible, and they should also be very aggressive with trying to add in new reforms to all of the familiar topics of fervent debate that fans and stakeholders have discussed in recent years so that they can enhance the overall value of the league and this sport for greater future prosperity and enjoyment.

  2. I have no issue with a 17 game schedule as long as the (Odd Numbered Game) is played in the United States in a neutral site. I don’t want to see a 17th game played outside the USA. If there is a 17th game played in a neutral site within the USA, select 4 cities to host those games throughout the year. Cities like San Antonio, Portland, St Louis and San Diego. I’ll probably get a lot of thumbs down, but oh well.

  3. THERE WILL NOT BE 17 OR 18 GAMES! PERIOD!

    Nobody except the owners want it.

    The fans, lol, for sure are not clamoring for more games.

  4. I really understand why the NFL is fixated on 17 games. Sometimes less is more. Does the additional one game of ticket revenue really make a difference? With the new TV deals and gambling revenue, I just don’t see how much the additional game will impact the overall revenue. Maybe 1% more? Also, 16 games has a nice symmetry in terms of scheduling.

  5. Please no. The idea of football dragging on into mid-February is awful, and “expanded rosters” aren’t going to save careers. Just leave it as is.

  6. “ Also, a recession is possible, which could limit the size of the offers from the various corporations that will be tightening belts during tougher times that could be here by next year at this time.”

    Thats pure speculation though, or in this case I think Its a statement of wishing and hope. No one should be making billion dollar business decisions based on such emotions.

  7. I’m hoping they strike or lockout. I’d like to see both side lose a little money

  8. @chief4ever says:
    February 6, 2020 at 11:27 pm
    “I have no issue with a 17 game schedule as long as the (Odd Numbered Game) is played in the United States in a neutral site.”

    My understanding is the NFL’s plan is the complete opposite of this, as they are looking to have all the teams play a game on foreign soil. A 17th game has limited new revenue possabilities if the NFL doesn’t explore new markets with that extra game. I would expect there to be a weekly game in the UK and/or possibly Mexico . . . this would be in order to get fans hooked on watching every Sunday, like in the states. You win the fans weekly attention then you get BBC and Televisa revenue for the broadcasting rights. Plus you have a who new market to sell merchandise into . . . moving it to smaller cities within the US doesn’t really open any new market channels and the NFL is, afterall, a huge marketing business.

    I would eventually also expect to see a franchise relocate to the UK and thereby have a true homefield advantage (I am look right at you Jacksonville).

  9. The March 18th deadline is an artificial one, as even with the start of a new league year slated for March, the CBA term doesn’t end for another year. The NFL owners can huff and puff, set a deadline and say this is the final offer; however, any lawyer that’s litigated will tell you 99% of the time the huffing and puffing is just that. The parties will reach a deal when each side finally agrees on the terms, and that’s usually when each side is a bit dissatsified with the results.

  10. Why are players so against this? The average NFL career is 3 years. An extra game check a year would help. I get the injury argument, but players that flame out usually flame out regardless of health. Good players can bounce back from most injuries these days.

  11. I enjoy football. Watch games, gamble, play a lil fantasy. Tho it sure starting to feel very liberating when the season ends and I break out the to do list n get out n do things see people. Ya gobble up half the year. Lay off my free time.

  12. NFL owners: Please stop messing with the game of football. 17 game season will only expose players to injury and I think it dilutes the game. Do you really need the extra money?

  13. Fat Rex says:
    February 7, 2020 at 1:38 pm
    NFL owners: Please stop messing with the game of football. 17 game season will only expose players to injury and I think it dilutes the game. Do you really need the extra money?
    ——————————

    The answer is yes. It will always be yes.

  14. Just keep the 16 game schedule and have each team take two bye weeks. That gives the NFL an extra week of TV revenue without adding the extra pounding to the players.

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.