Players resisting 17-game CBA proposal; leadership disputing report of March 18 “rough deadline”

Getty Images

As NFL Players Association leadership meets in Los Angeles to further discuss the pending proposal from the NFL for a 10-year Collective Bargaining Agreement based on a 17-game season, most are mum about the situation. One league source has informed PFT, however, that the Executive Committee delegation and members of the board of player representatives are continuing to resist the concept of an extra game.

As previously reported and explained, the negotiating teams representing the league and the union have struck a deal subject to approval by their clients. The NFLPA’s approval process consists of the Executive Committee recommending the proposal to the board of player reps, two-thirds of the board approving the deal, and then 50 percent plus one of the roughly 1,900 dues-paying members of the union accepting the contract. Based on meetings occurred last Thursday and this Thursday, the NFLPA is having a harder time selling the deal than expected.

Meanwhile, both NFLPA spokesman George Atallah and Steelers representative Ramon Foster have disputed on Twitter the report from Dan Graziano of ESPN that the NFL has provided the union with a “rough deadline” of March 18 to accept the deal.

NOT TRUE!!!!! NOT TRUE,” Foster said on Twitter. “This is a complicated deal and to say we are rushed to complete a deal is a lie. Whoever told you this lie, don’t trust them around your kids or in your house.”

Reminded that the comment comes from an ESPN report, Foster said, “Don’t trust ESPN producers and experts to watch your kids or home then. It’s a bold lie. This is arguably the biggest deal for time to come and you think we are going to rush this. That’s a hard no. Sorry. Fan of ur page though. No malice but we can’t let this be the narrative.”

Said Atallah, “Simply put, this report is not true.”

Here’s what is true: The ball is on the tee for a 10-year CBA. The union has to decide whether to kick it, or to walk away. And then if the union walks away, the NFL will have to decide what to do next, at a time when both sides want to turn to a renegotiation of the billions-dollars contracts with the various networks.

UPDATE 7:13 p.m. ET: A prior version of this item attributed the “rough deadline” report to Schefter, who tweeted a link to the story. The byline on the story belongs to Dan Graziano. The story has since been edited to remove the “rough deadline” language, and to explain that “both sides would prefer to have a deal in place soon so that changes in the CBA structure could go into effect at the start of the new league year on March 18.” The original “rough deadline” language can still be seen by Googling “rough deadline Dan Graziano.”

15 responses to “Players resisting 17-game CBA proposal; leadership disputing report of March 18 “rough deadline”

  1. Oh that’s great. The 16 game season is already too long, players are exposed to more injuries, and the quality of the game suffers. Will you owners please leave the game alone? You have screwed it up enough already.

  2. If it was up to the players they’d never practice … and probably never play any games. If they could sit home and have their checks mailed to them they’d be fine with it.

  3. I wonder if this is just the NFL creating a bargaining chip to give away in order to avoid guaranteed contracts. If not, 17 games with an extra bye week seems like a good compromise.

  4. Have 2 bye weeks, take away Thursday games except for The Opener and Thanksgiving. Even give the networks 18 weeks and get this done. We do not need to see a prolonged stoppage.

  5. whateverworks77 says: “And the Browns have increased season ticket costs for 2nd straight year…up 33 percent since 2018”

    This isn’t 1960’s anymore. Gate receipts account for maybe 2-3% of league revenue. The majority is from tv contracts – it’s over $10 BILLION for the 2020 season.

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.