NFL has yet to approach NFLPA to bargain over expanded playoffs

USA TODAY Sports

When it comes to potentially expanding the 2020 playoffs, the NFL has positioned the cart before the horse.

Unveiled yesterday as a done deal (in the event regular-season games are lost to the pandemic), it won’t be a done deal until the NFL Players Association agrees to it. The NFLPA has not yet agreed to it.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL had informed the union that the contingency plan would be considered, but the league had not yet approached the NFLPA to engage in formal bargaining.

The union remains open to creative ideas for getting through the season. However, expansion of the playoffs constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining. The league, in the union’s view, cannot unilaterally impose this change in working conditions.

The NFL waited for several year, for example, to expand the playoffs from 12 to 14 because the union had a say in the move, and because the union declined to agree to it. Agreement came only as part of a broader, comprehensive labor deal.

Now, with the league wanting to stage two extra playoff games, the union will have a say in the matter. The union also will have the right to seek a concession. For example, the union could ask for players who otherwise weren’t paid for any lost regular-season games to get their checks as part of the agreement to allow two extra teams into the postseason field.

Whatever the concession may be, the union is entitled to seek one. The union also is entitled to say to the NFL, “We’re fine with 14 teams, as we previously agreed.”

Thus, even though the league has removed the sheet from the statue, the statue remains unfinished. Technically, it may never be.

8 responses to “NFL has yet to approach NFLPA to bargain over expanded playoffs

  1. Why bargain? It’s pretty simple. You either expand the playoffs by a game or revenue goes down. If the players refuse they get less cash.

  2. “Whatever the concession may be, the union is entitled to seek one. The union also is entitled to say to the NFL, “We’re fine with 14 teams, as we previously agreed.”
    ——————-

    Right. By not having a full 256 tv network schedule, the networks don’t have to pay the full contract amount. Guess where 50% of that loss of NFL income is going to hurt? The players.

    So no, the NFL doesn’t need to offer any “concessions” to the union, other than to say “you lose too”. Don’t understand why you’re advocating “cutting off the nose to spite the face” as a smart business decision.

  3. melikefootball says:

    November 11, 2020 at 11:16 am

    No worry on what will make this decision, players health no concern but lets have more money come in
    ——–
    This is such a ridiculous statement that so many people keep repeating. News flash: the players health is a concern to the NFLPA because, heres a teaching moment for you, the PA stands for players association so its voted on by the players if it happens it not forced on them. Now just because you would rather they live in a bubble thats your problem. Its not up to you to decide whats in their best interest.

  4. darrenkod says:

    November 11, 2020 at 10:45 am

    “Whatever the concession may be, the union is entitled to seek one. The union also is entitled to say to the NFL, “We’re fine with 14 teams, as we previously agreed.”
    ——————-

    Right. By not having a full 256 tv network schedule, the networks don’t have to pay the full contract amount. Guess where 50% of that loss of NFL income is going to hurt? The players.

    So no, the NFL doesn’t need to offer any “concessions” to the union, other than to say “you lose too”. Don’t understand why you’re advocating “cutting off the nose to spite the face” as a smart business decision.
    ——-
    Except that’s not the way negotiations and bargaining works and your also trying to look at all players as a 1 person rather than realizing how that 50% is divided. 50% may be the same on both sides but 50% for players is being divided among hundreds and hundreds of players but the 50% for owners isnt divided among hundreds so each owner is walking away with(or losing) much more than any player(even superstars) so what the owner loses is a lot more than what’s loss per player so it’s not cutting off the nose to spite the face its making a smart business decision after all who has more to lose and who has the leverage?

  5. The NFL hasn’t approached the NFLPA as the owners simply voted on a contingency plan. What concessions would need to be made? If games are cancelled, then the NFLPA are okay with adding games to the playoffs to make up the lost revenue, or they accept there will be lost revenue.

  6. The CBA does not require an agreement to expand the playoffs. They used that to increase from 12 to 14 teams. Does the CBA explicity limit to 14?

  7. Why would they even need this when it’s clear the nfl isn’t going to cancel any games no matter how many players test positive?

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.