Better fully enjoy the 2010 NFL season. Under the current labor agreement the upcoming season is ominously referred to as the “Final League Year.” Though sounding apocalyptic, this is the verbiage agreed to in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into between owners and players that applies to the coming 2010 season. On March 8, 2006 a document in excess of 300 pages was signed by the respective sides which strove for labor peace through 2012. Unfortunately, like most NFL contracts, the devil is in the details and what sounded like a binding agreement between two sides to remain in place through the 2012 season is anything but.
According to Article 58 of the CBA, “this Agreement shall be effective from March 8, 2006 until the last day of the 2012 League Year.” That would be the end of things if it were not for section 3a of the same section. There it states, “Either the NFLPA or the Management Council may terminate [the agreement] by giving written notice to the other on or before November 8, 2008.” It is now the two year anniversary of the owners unanimously vote to terminate the agreement they signed just two years prior. What was universally acceptable on March 8, 2006 became universally unacceptable on May 20, 2008. An agreement hoping to secure labor peace for six years failed after merely two.
Back in May 2008, both sides assured the public that the owners 32-0 vote to abandon the CBA six months prior to the required notification date was not a problem and that everything would be fine. Commissioner, Roger Goodell: “We have guaranteed three more years of NFL football. …The agreement isn’t working, and we’re looking to get a more fair and equitable deal.” Then player’s union representative, Gene Upshaw commented: “We will move ahead. This just starts the clock ticking.” Former union representative and Houston Texans kicker, Kris Brown: “It’s not like the threat of losing a season is imminent, because that’s not the case. We’re talking about this now but one year from now, two years from now we could come to an agreement and have an extension and all this is for nothing.”
Welcome to the middle of 2010 and all this has become highly meaningful and worrisome. Back then, Upshaw noted an email by Commissioner Goodell highlighting the owners reasons for backing out of the deal: increased labor costs, problems with the rookie salary pool, and difficulty recouping signing bonuses for players violating the terms of their contract or refusing to play. Unfortunately the brief list of grievances has grown over the past few years. It now includes a desire from owners for players to share the expenses incurred in new stadium construction or upgrades and the growing realization that retired players need to be better cared for.
Where this ends is anyone’s guess. Most negotiations like this go down to the 11th hour. Would the two sides be foolish enough to risk biting the hands that feed them? The longer this goes unresolved the more tension, frustration, concern, fear, and potential animosity will come their way via the fans who give them the billions they now dicker over. The most prosperous sport of all time stands to cut off its nose despite its face. These are heady times for owners and players, but it would be a shame if the entire League were to put a permanent stain on the shield they fight so fiercely to protect.
I’m supporting the players here, retired and injured players need to have much more protection and need to be represented better, a lot if not the majority of NFL owners and the NFL themselves are cheapskates trying to avoid paying the medical costs or pension funds for injured or retired players. There are some owners who are devoted to having a successful team and who will go out of their way to help former players, but there are many who are in it for money who won’t easily pay extra.
I agree NFL players and rookies are paid too much, but compared to the contracts people sign in baseball their salaries are often meagre by comparison. I see baseball players given hundreds of millions of dollas to play a sport which is riddled with steroid abuse and far less strenuous to play (yeah they play 160 games, but they don’t get hit by 300 pounds behemoths every week). Also there is no effective way to limit rookies salaries that I can see, if you impose a salary cap everyone in the first round or so will simply be paid the same and the later round draft picks will be paid more, which will just lead to more problems.
I think the NFL will probably win the battle in the media, as they’re right in saying rookies are paid too much and also I think a lot of people are perhaps suspicious of the players union. Also in a propaganda people in America I’ll take a major corporation over a workers union, and the battle in the press could be crucial in one side forcing the other to cede. I don’t think there will be a lockout as the NFL will do anything to not miss out on the orgy of profit making the NFL is and the owners will be desperate to avoid losing money. But it will be a bloody battle with much anguish on both sides, and I don’t see a solution with all sides happy being possible.
“An agreement hoping to secure labor peace for six years failed after merely two.”
Why?
“(I)ncreased labor costs..,”
Specifically, what labor costs?
“(P)roblems with the rookie salary pool..,”
If, if the NFL really, truly has reached a point where teams don’t want THE number one (two, three,..) draft pick because it is too expensive, then something creative has to be done to remedy this situation.
“(D)ifficulty recouping signing bonuses for players violating the terms of their contract or refusing to play.”
I can see no way an unemployed athlete is going to repay a multi-thousand or multimillion dollar signing bonus. The risk of paying a signing bonus cannot be removed; a signing bonus is inherently risky. To eliminate the risks they’ll need to eliminate the bonuses.
Other grievances of owners are…
“(A) desire…for players to share the expenses incurred in new stadium construction or upgrades…”
Are you kidding me!? What employee is asked to help pay for their workplace? The workplace is provided by the employer, always. It’s never been any different, unless the employee is made a true partner in the business. Are NFL team owners prepared to make players partial owners of their teams? This “grievance” is absolutely preposterous!
“(A)nd the growing realization that retired players need to be better cared for.”
Owners are concerned about this? If they are, they are a great deal more generous than I realize. But I suspect this is a “realization” of the players and not the owners. Whoever receives the credit, I hope that retired players receive the care they need.
The problem is that once the owners agree (and that’s not easy in and of itself), then the owners have to go to the players and ask if they agree. This process does not bode well for the future. It will be nothing short of miraculous if there isn’t a lockout.
No idea what the fuss is about. Why does the NFL, or more pertinently American sports, even need a CBA? Why can’t market forces decide the worth of a player? While we’re there, scrap revenue sharing, it rewards failure. Introduce relegation, it rewards success.
“But we need these things!” scream the North Americans (one of the few places in the world that CBA’s and revenue sharing actually operate). “You don’t need it” says the EPL fan. “You don’t need it” says the La Liga fan. “You don’t need it” says the majority of the sporting world.
The CBA is protectionist, and supports monopolies and failing organisations. Why should fans put up with that? It’s all about the fans isn’t it? Or is it about protecting revenue streams for already super-rich owners and elite players, to the detriment of fans and the 95% of players who can’t demand elite salaries but risk life and limb every time they go onto the pitch. The CBA does somewhat protect the rights of the many, particularly the league minimum wage, but even without a CBA players would still sign contracts with teams that would protect them from injury. And don’t kid yourself that the league minimum was a player initiative – it was an owner initiative that the players despise.
I’m not attacking the product here. I love it. But in a nation that prides itself on it’s democracy and free-market nature, it’s hard to justify any of it being right.
I’m also not saying other systems are perfect. I think the EPL and La Liga would benefit massively from a salary cap for instance. But the world might not end if things changed.
What a sad state of affairs, I guess this is the problem faced with the society of greed that the NFL has been since the 80’s.
Boomer07uk’s comments are interesting but I cant agree that CBA directly protects failing organisations, I actually think revenue sharing is a great idea and strengthens the league as a whole. The great thing about the NFL (and I suppose other North american sports) is that in 5 years time any team could potentially win the top prize. You cant say that about the EPL or La Liga (where its bound to be only a select group of 2-5 organisation) unless some newcoming billionaire bankrolls them to the title. Revenue sharing and salary caps prevent this and the stability of every teams position in the competition year by year also provides a degree of economic certainty.
PS. Isn’t the saying, cut off your nose to spite your face?
Love the comments.
Regarding the nose to spite the face. Steven pointed out that I had gotten it wrong, but I liked it better the way I originally wrote it. Despite means that they are barely conscious of the fans. They are not trying to spite the fans, they are largely ignorant of the true impact they are having on the fans. They are too self absorbed. The spite is coming from me — not them. I am getting fed up!
New member here. Love the podcast. First time I ever saw pics of Jeff and Steven, nothing like I had pictured in my mind. LOL. For some reason I had Steven pictured as looking like George Lopez (don’t ask me why) and had Jeff pictured as a cross between Pee Wee Herman and a young Ted Danson (just kidding with that one). Actually Jeff reminds me a lot of my bestfriend so the mental image was similar to him. Never really thought about what yall looked like but I guess you build a mental image even if you don’t mean to.
Back on topic:
In today’s economy the NFL owners, players and everyone else employed by this great sport should be very thankful for the money they get. I certainly get tired of these athletes hollering for a new contract each time they actually live up to their ability. On the other side, I hate that the NFL teams will throw you in the trash heap and erase a player’s income the instant they have gotten everything they can out of him. Nature of the beast? Yeah, you could say that but isn’t it a beast that the NFL has created itself? The huge amounts of money dumped into unproven rookies is ridiculous. Some contracts can cripple teams for years even if the top paid star lives up to his hype. That has got to be regulated by a rookie salary cap. The NFL owners and players need to get this worked out, if they end up in a strike in this day and age, both parties will be staggered by the back-lash from fans that are struggling just to keep their families clothed and food on the table. I would like to see some cheaper prices to see a live game, of course Jerry-World a.k.a. Cowboys’ Stadium costs an arm and a leg to get in and heaven forbid you park in its parking lots or buy something to eat or drink… it requires a second mortgage on your house to afford it. No such a thing as cheap seats there. Bottom line is that both sides are out to get all they can get and the fans may be the ones that suffer the most in the end. I agree with the fed up comment Jeff.
Sincerely,
BGR