NFLPA clarifies (and perhaps changes) the rules for adopting new CBA

Getty Images

The rules they are a-changin’.

Amid multiple reports that the NFL Players Association will send the current CBA proposal to full membership for a simple-majority vote to ratify it regardless of the outcome of the vote conducted by the 32-man board of player representatives — and despite NFLPA Constitution language apparently to the contrary — the NFLPA has made an adjustment.

Per a league source, the NFLPA will be submitting the full CBA to all players for a formal vote only if a simple majority of the board of player representatives approves the deal.

“There has been some confusion about the process governing the Board of Player Representatives vote on the proposed CBA,” the union said in a memo sent to all agents on Monday. “The proposed CBA is sent to the full player Membership for a ratification vote ONLY if a majority of the Board votes to send it to them. If a majority of the Board does NOT vote to send the proposed CBA to the full player membership, it will NOT be sent. If 2/3 or more of the Board votes to recommend to full player membership that the proposed CBA be ratified, it will be sent with a formal recommendation.”

The relevant language from Article VI of the CBA appeared in a Friday item. Article VI says nothing about a majority vote of the board of player representatives being a prerequisite to a vote by all players, referencing only a two-thirds, non-binding vote that would amount to a formal recommendation from the board to all members of the union.

That said, Article VI has language suggesting that the board must reach an agreement with the league before a CBA is considered for potential ratification. It’s possible that the board, exercising its powers under Article V of the NFLPA Constitution, has interpreted Article VI to require agreement between the board and the league, and that said agreement must be reflected by a majority vote of the board.

However it happened, the rules definitely are different now than they were on Friday. On Friday, it was regarded as a given that a majority vote of all players would trump whatever the board’s vote may be. Now, the board can block a full vote, if 16 or more members of the board of player representatives vote no.

The ensuing message to the league is clear: “Don’t assume that, even if the board balks at your best offer, more than half of all players will approve the deal. They won’t even get a chance to vote unless at least 17 members of the board sign off on the agreement.”

Of course, there’s a chance this is an unsupportable interpretation of the NFLPA Constitution. But, as a practical matter, who’s going to do anything about it? As one source recently explained it to PFT, the vast majority of players are paying no attention to this process. A player who isn’t a member of the board or the Executive Committee would have to fight this, and the chances of that happening are highly unlikely.

6 responses to “NFLPA clarifies (and perhaps changes) the rules for adopting new CBA

  1. Imagine if the NFLPA and their members were wise enough to pool their money and invest it wisely. They could be sitting on a $100 billion fortune like the Mormon church, instead they find themselves at the mercy of the owners every few years begging for peanuts.

  2. The problem with “wise investments” is that we do not really know whether or not they were wise until you cash out. Once upon a time, Enron was a “wise” investment as was Lehman Brothers.

    And if you think 48% of $25B is “peanuts” then wow.
    ————-
    arealisticpackerfan says:
    February 24, 2020 at 1:17 pm
    Imagine if the NFLPA and their members were wise enough to pool their money and invest it wisely. They could be sitting on a $100 billion fortune like the Mormon church, instead they find themselves at the mercy of the owners every few years begging for peanuts.

  3. Agree this is heading for a Lock-Out. I seriously doubt 32 owners (if we’re still allowed to call them that) have an appetite to renegotiate with 32 player reps who have been standing on the sidelines for a year or so. They shouldn’t have to start the give and take after already doing so to come up with this current deal. I’d say, “Fire the negotiator YOU chose and let’s head to the Lock-Out! Pretty sure the rank and file players of the XFL, CFL and NCAAFB can fill in!” And America will still watch!

  4. Apparently comments about mega-stars looking out for their interests vs. the interests of the common player are not appreciated here.

    Or pointing out the obvious that some of these players want to get paid like highly compensated employees & receive a cut of revenue despite no investment into capital.

Leave a Reply

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