NFLPA board narrowly approves CBA for full union vote

Posted by Mike Florio on February 26, 2020, 6:22 AM EST
Getty Images

The NFL Players Association unexpectedly raised the bar for sending the current CBA proposal to the full union for a vote. Early Wednesday, that bar was cleared.

Per a league source, the vote by the 32-member board of player representatives was 17 for, 14 against, and one abstention. That gave the measure the minimum number of votes needed to send the measure to the full union, based on the re-interpretation of the NFLPA Constitution that the union communicated to agents on Monday.

The proposed CBA won’t go to the full union with a recommendation for the players to accept it, however. It has been believe that, ultimately, the absence of a recommendation won’t matter, and that the rank and file will indeed accept the proposed deal.

It’s unclear whether and to what extent the NFL adjusted the terms of the proposal that the league officially ratified last Thursday. What is clear is that the full member of the union (roughly 1,900 dues-paying members) will cast an up or down vote on the new CBA. If 50 percent plus one approve, it will be adopted.

Permalink 9 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

9 responses to “NFLPA board narrowly approves CBA for full union vote”

  1. Of course it will pass once it goes to the rank and file.
    The structure benefits the lower earning players more. These players will see their income go up this year. Expanded rosters, increased minimum salaries, a huge payout for a 17th game.
    The players who voted against the proposal are wealthier players who could afford a lockout. The Richard Sherman and JJ Watt types, who are already very wealthy. The back end roster guy hoping to keep his job, and build some equity from a very short career can’t sign soon enough.

    So, do these player reps really represent the players? I would think if they communicated with their team throughout the process, all 32 player reps would have said yes.

  3. If this gets approved I NEVER want to hear any player that voted for this agreement complain about player safety ever again. Complaining about wear and tear and then voting for a 17th game. Ridiculous.

  5. Of course it will pass once it goes to the rank and file.
    The structure benefits the lower earning players more. These players will see their income go up this year. Expanded rosters, increased minimum salaries, a huge payout for a 17th game.
    The players who voted against the proposal are wealthier players who could afford a lockout. The Richard Sherman and JJ Watt types, who are already very wealthy. The back end roster guy hoping to keep his job, and build some equity from a very short career can’t sign soon enough.

    So, do these player reps really represent the players? I would think if they communicated with their team throughout the process, all 32 player reps would have said yes.

    ========================

    Not so fast. The rank and file get the most benefits but also some of the worst penalties.

    Minimum salaries are at their lowest early in player careers, and more games mean shorter careers. The same guys who would benefit from an extra game check or extra roster spot are also most likely to no longer get a shot after injury wear and tear.

    As for Sherman and Watt being able to afford a lockout, they are also players who may lose their window to play competitively anymore with any significant labor disruption, and how are unlikely to see both the benefits AND hardships of a new 17 game system. They are arguing against the CBA but on behalf of the rank and file.

    Also, rejecting this first offer does not guarantee a work stoppage. We are months from that, so this is not yet a decision of take the deal or miss cheques.

  6. lgw91s says:
    February 26, 2020 at 6:59 am

    Of course it will pass once it goes to the rank and file. The structure benefits the lower earning players more.

    ===============

    Which, I expect, is a very intentional investment by the league in avoiding a walkout. The lower-earning players had the most to lose from a work stoppage, and now they have more to gain from a deal. That contrast will be too much to deny.

    Here’s hoping it really does benefit the lower-paid guys as it plays out. I have no sympathy for the stars.

  7. In the business world, rarely do workers get the opportunity to give themselves a raise. This definitely gets passed. It’s the old 80/20 rule. 80% of the money is being paid to 20% of the players. This plan increases the lower paid players and gives them more benefits. Savvy move by the owners, and smart play by the reps to ignore the voices of the 20% getting paid the most. I know why one rep abstained from voting, it made the vote an odd # and made it a true pass or fail vote.

  8. According to the NFLPA itself the average players career is 3.3 years.

    Although every team has it’s stars and then it’s longer term players- the 3.3 years is damning.

    Of course the majority will vote for it because the majority gets the minimum.

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.