OT: NFL Lockout May Happen By 2020

[sawchuk1971]

NFLPA director sounds very pessimistic..

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...will-almost-certainly-hit-nfl-in-near-future/

The last time the NFL had to cancel games due to a work stoppage came in 1987. This time around, Smith isn't quite sure yet if a work stoppage would lead to any canceled games, but he didn't sound optimistic.

"I don't know. Let's look at our history," Smith said.

The problem with negotiating a new CBA is that it sounds like the players don't really trust the owners right now.

"The owners do a deal in 2006 and opt out in 2008. We do a deal in 2011 with no opt outs because we like the benefits under the current deal and we didn't want to give the owners an opportunity to opt out and take back the games that we currently have," Smith said. "If there was no renegotiating of the collective bargaining agreement and we reach 2021, there is no uncapped year. The last time we went through it, we found out that the owners lied and cheated about the uncapped year, so why would I do that again?"

The seeds for the 2011 lockout were planted in 2008 when the NFL's 32 owners voted to opt out of a CBA that was supposed to run through 2012. When the league opted out, that meant an early end to the 2006 CBA agreement and left the league with an uncapped salary year in 2010.

According to Smith, the owners "colluded with each other" so that the players wouldn't be able to take advantage of the uncapped year.

Click to read more...

 

[USAUSA1]

Will not happen

 

[sawchuk1971]

Will not happen

why?

because the nfl union has no backbone to go against the owners compared to other sport leagues in north america (MLB under donald fehr)?

 

[Hockeyholic]

Five years away. Won't happen. NFL will continue being a ratings juggernaut.

 

[rj]

why?

because the nfl union has no backbone to go against the owners compared to other sport leagues in north america (MLB under donald fehr)?

The last time there were labor problems in the NFL, the union actually won on that deal.

 

[GordonGecko]

The last time the owners fixed the table against the players, they had an agreement with the TV networks that the NFL would get paid even if the players went on strike, so they got their money no matter what while the players went broke.

I believe that got taken out of the TV deal in place around the next CBA negotiations, can anyone confirm that?

If the owners are losing money they will be less likely to hold out. It will come down to how generous the concessions are that the players are seeking and how much of an effort they are willing to put out to get them.

Personally the biggest change I'd want to see is to get rid of the commissioner's ultimate authority on deciding player suspensions & punishments. There should be fixed rules in writing about what each infraction results in and I'd want to get rid of this private investigation nonsense. A player should be suspended for an off the field or locker room incident only if convicted of something in a court of law.

 

[oilers9799]

The players already don't have guaranteed contracts, what else can the owners take from the players that they would have to lock out?

The owners already own NFL players, there won't be a lock out.

 

[Jumptheshark]

The players already don't have guaranteed contracts, what else can the owners take from the players that they would have to lock out?

The owners already own NFL players, there won't be a lock out.

Players want guaranteed contracts back

 

[Street Hawk]

Players want guaranteed contracts back

I don't think the NFL players ever had that.

For Gordon Gecko, how many players off a 53 man roster per team get into trouble? Between 3-5 a team? So, less than 10% would ever had to deal with RG for disciplinary reasons.

Guys who get busted for PEDs, that's just them taking stuff without checking with their team's medical staff who can do the research and let them know if it is ok or not to take.

It's all about money for 90% of the players. No chance that they will ever get fully guaranteed contracts. Too many fringe guys. You have 22 starters, plus 2 kickers and a long snapper. A backup for each position gets you to 47 players. A lot of NFL rosters are made up of guys on their rookie deals who won't see another NFL contract.

Best strategy is to:
1) Redo rookie deals down to 3 years from 4 and eliminate the club option on 1st round picks.
2) Limit franchise tag to 1 time per player.
3) Get the revenue split back up to 50/50
4) Add an extra bye week to the schedule to lessen the impact of Thursday game. Use the additional bye week for the prior week that teams have to play on a Thursday night.

Then, it's up to the players and their agents to get as much of their contract guaranteed. Plus, they shouldn't sign deals for longer term to help owners with the salary cap because they would be subject to getting cut or if they out perform their deal, they have no leverage to get a new deal.

 

[Gnashville]

why?

because the nfl union has no backbone to go against the owners compared to other sport leagues in north america (MLB under donald fehr)?

More like the Owners have the backbone to stand up to the union unlike baseball. NFL brings in replcement players and keeps on ticking.

 

[Street Hawk]

More like the Owners have the backbone to stand up to the union unlike baseball. NFL brings in replcement players and keeps on ticking.

In football, there is no minor league system. You are either playing in the NFL, CFL or the Arena League. So, if you were a former player in college and the players go on strike, you are going to cross the picket line and try to get a job to make $500K and live out your dream.

In baseball or hockey, you would be shunned upon when the regulars returned that you crossed the picket line as a minor leaguer. Cause, you know that it will get settled and if you are good enough, your time will come. Plus, you don't have the higher likelihood of injuries like football.

Those last 10 guys at the end of the roster, don't want to give a chance to someone else to take their job. They know that they just made the team and each year another 400 college guys graduate and arrive at training camp, plus all of those former college guys who didn't make a team the prior year come back for a chance.

 

[tony d]

It's 3 yrs. away but I think they'll see a settlement long before 2020.

 

[GordonGecko]

I don't think the NFL players ever had that.

For Gordon Gecko, how many players off a 53 man roster per team get into trouble? Between 3-5 a team? So, less than 10% would ever had to deal with RG for disciplinary reasons.

Guys who get busted for PEDs, that's just them taking stuff without checking with their team's medical staff who can do the research and let them know if it is ok or not to take.

It's all about money for 90% of the players. No chance that they will ever get fully guaranteed contracts. Too many fringe guys. You have 22 starters, plus 2 kickers and a long snapper. A backup for each position gets you to 47 players. A lot of NFL rosters are made up of guys on their rookie deals who won't see another NFL contract.

Best strategy is to:
1) Redo rookie deals down to 3 years from 4 and eliminate the club option on 1st round picks.
2) Limit franchise tag to 1 time per player.
3) Get the revenue split back up to 50/50
4) Add an extra bye week to the schedule to lessen the impact of Thursday game. Use the additional bye week for the prior week that teams have to play on a Thursday night.

Then, it's up to the players and their agents to get as much of their contract guaranteed. Plus, they shouldn't sign deals for longer term to help owners with the salary cap because they would be subject to getting cut or if they out perform their deal, they have no leverage to get a new deal.

The discipline part is what affects me as a fan when I can't watch a player because he's been suspended on a witch hunt after the law said there was nothing to prosecute. The NFLPA won't care as much because of how few players are affected, they only care about their share of the money which I care absolutely nothing about. So obviously the fans will have different priorities than the players.

In terms of what players should ask for, the guaranteed money is a zero sum game. A player who gets cut and loses the balance of his contract will be out that money, but the salary will be spent on someone else in the union. There's a salary floor so the whole of the union gets their money no matter what. Obviously they would want better guarantees but what will move the needle more is growing their share of the pie to increase player revenues. I think players will fight most for the revenue split and the relaxing of marijuana rules

 

[David Dennison]

Somewhat related. Surprised Rovell is throwing shade, he is usually Mr. you-get-paid-what-the-market-decides.

 

[TOGuy14]

Players want guaranteed contracts back

I read about this once and it was kind of interesting.

There is nothing in the CBA that prevents teams from giving out fully guaranteed contracts.

A long time ago when the league was not as financially stable and you offered a guaranteed contract you had to put that money in a trust for the player. Many owners didn't like having to puts say $30M into an account that would slowly transfer to a player over X amount of years so they didn't want to offer many guaranteed contracts after that.

Now that the league is stable the "trust" clause no longer exists but not players push for the guaranteed contract.

Would be nice to see the new CBA set a minimum amount of guaranteed years (ie at least half of a contract must be guaranteed).

 

[GordonGecko]

I think there should be no guaranteed contracts in any sport. If you go from being a .330 hitter in baseball to .220 then you have no business collecting $25 Million per year

 

[TOGuy14]

I think there should be no guaranteed contracts in any sport. If you go from being a .330 hitter in baseball to .220 then you have no business collecting $25 Million per year

This is a fine argument so long as you agree that if you go from being a .220 hitter to a .300 hitter the team should then quadruple your salary as well.

 

[FlyTimmo]

Five years away. Won't happen. NFL will continue being a ratings juggernaut.

Isn't it only 3-4 years away? It isn't 2015 anymore.

 

[GordonGecko]

This is a fine argument so long as you agree that if you go from being a .220 hitter to a .300 hitter the team should then quadruple your salary as well.

That's a great point, the optimal situation is performance based pay. You have your base minimum, then negotiate your extras per metric. It's a problem with team sports when the player is putting himself above the team but there should be some happy medium somewhere. Right now you have situations like Jacoby Ellsbury making $153 million dollars when he can barely get on base. Plenty of examples in hockey too. There must be a better way than a 67% buyout

 

[powerstuck]

I think there should be no guaranteed contracts in any sport. If you go from being a .330 hitter in baseball to .220 then you have no business collecting $25 Million per year

That gives all the leverage to owners and puts immense pressure on players.

Owners would never agree to increase a contracts value because player over performs*

* New contrats get increased because the better the player becomes the more demand for him there is.

 

[GordonGecko]

That gives all the leverage to owners and puts immense pressure on players.

Owners would never agree to increase a contracts value because player over performs*

* New contrats get increased because the better the player becomes the more demand for him there is.

Does it even matter if the players are guaranteed 50% of the pie regardless?