NFLPA director: Convinced players will be locked out in 2011

[Disco Volante]

NFLPA director Smith convinced players will be locked out in 2011

NFL officials insist they want a new labor deal.

The players association is convinced league owners are after something else: A lockout in 2011.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith told reporters at the Colts' training camp Monday morning that he expects owners to impose a lockout in two years and has begun advising players on how to prepare for it.

"They want to lock us out in 2011, so our drop dead date is when our players say 'What do I do when my family needs health care?'" Smith said while making the latest stop on his league-wide tour. "All of us are sitting back waiting to hear why they walked away from a deal that generated $8 billion."

Apparently, players are listening.

 

[DaBruinz]

I find it curious that the NFPLA President thinks that the CBA is what generated the $8 billion dollars and not the various TV contracts, Ticket Sales, and other revenue streams that the teams do a majority of the work on.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

i still have to believe that this is mostly negotiating posturing at this stage of the game. sure, they're being responsible and getting their members ready for the worst but I think we're a long way from a lockout. as in any negotiation like this, each side has a settlement price where the cost of a lockout exceeds the (perceived) cost of the settlement in terms of lost opportunity. hopefully, those two numbers aren't too far apart.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

I find it curious that the NFPLA President thinks that the CBA is what generated the $8 billion dollars and not the various TV contracts, Ticket Sales, and other revenue streams that the teams do a majority of the work on.

WE the fans are responsible for the 8 bil. If anyone should go on strike, it should be us.

 

[DaBruinz]

What I find kind of hypocritical is that the NFLPA has known since Mid-2008 that the owners had opted out of the current CBA because they felt it was economically unfeasible for a variety of reasons... They gave those reasons at the time they opted out. Now the NFLPA wants to know why??

Also, the NFLPA has dragged its feet for months... They didn't even try to start negotiations before Upshaw passed... But now they want to be the ones to smell like roses if the owners should lock the players out prior to the 2011 season.. Its not gonna happen... People have wised up to their schtick...

They need to realize that their minimum salary of 300K takes many people 4-6 years to make.. So, there aren't a lot of people who are going to feel sorry for them.. But the same can be said for the owners as well.. People aren't going to care whether or not they get to take home only 100 million in profits instead of 250 million.. (yes that's an exaggeration). The fans want to be able to share the experience with their kids more than once every few years.. But its nearly impossible because of the prices of tickets, parking, food, etc.. It could cost a family of 4 a mortgage payment to go to 1 game..

 

[Rob0729]

I'll believe it when I see it. Before this CBA was signed, the NFLPA were stating that there would be a work stoppage in 2008. It was postering then and I am guessing it is posturing now.

The NFL and its players make billions a year. I can't see either side willing to lose that with a work stoppage. Too many teams have huge stadium costs to pay off and cannot afford to lose a year's worth of revenue.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

But its nearly impossible because of the prices of tickets, parking, food, etc.. It could cost a family of 4 a mortgage payment to go to 1 game..

That won't change if the players make less money. That is supply and demand. Owners will always charge whatever people will pay.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I find it curious that the NFPLA President thinks that the CBA is what generated the $8 billion dollars and not the various TV contracts, Ticket Sales, and other revenue streams that the teams do a majority of the work on.

LOL I guess he hasn't talked to Ralph Wilson who even in his dotage can explain to him why it was an unworkable CBA from jump street. And I guess he missed the part where the players got a both a larger % (creeping further upward over the life of the deal that was opted out of) as well as access to a more expansive $8 billion dollar pie in that CBA. One or the other would have been justified. But the union demanded both because owners apparently aren't entitled to make more $$$ any more and Tags and Gene wanted to exit their tenures on a high note.

No wonder so many owners lag in entreprenurial skills, why knock yourself out if 60% of every new indirect additional dollar you generate goes to the players as well. The NFLPA apparently believes teams exist as vehicles to gather and funnel $$$ to on field talent and if the guys who put up all the capital break even or even lose a little ground, so what...they're all sitting on billion dollar assets (on paper) and they never take a snap...let them squeeze the invisible infrastructure (coaches, administration, service employees) for their margin if they foolishly believe they are entitled to one... Heck, by the time Vrabel left here as player rep he had convinced himself that players were entitled to 60% of Patriots place revenues since by merely existing they had as much invested in it as the shmuck who assumed all the risk to develop and build it.

Hopefully this is just necessary idiot bluster to set the new president up to look like a hero when he somehow brokers a deal that averts a lockout.

Somehow after the events of the last week I have a feeling that this league will not allow anything to happen that risks losing yet another year in Mike Vick's career...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

LOL I guess he hasn't talked to Ralph Wilson who even in his dotage can explain to him why it was an unworkable CBA from jump street. And I guess he missed the part where the players got a both a larger % (creeping further upward over the life of the deal that was opted out of) as well as access to a more expansive $8 billion dollar pie in that CBA. One or the other would have been justified. But the union demanded both because owners apparently aren't entitled to make more $$$ any more and Tags and Gene wanted to exit their tenures on a high note.

No wonder so many owners lag in entreprenurial skills, why knock yourself out if 60% of every new indirect additional dollar you generate goes to the players as well. The NFLPA apparently believes teams exist as vehicles to gather and funnel $$$ to on field talent and if the guys who put up all the capital break even or even lose a little ground, so what...they're all sitting on billion dollar assets (on paper) and they never take a snap...let them squeeze the invisible infrastructure (coaches, administration, service employees) for their margin if they foolishly believe they are entitled to one... Heck, by the time Vrabel left here as player rep he had convinced himself that players were entitled to 60% of Patriots place revenues since by merely existing they had as much invested in it as the shmuck who assumed all the risk to develop and build it.

Hopefully this is just necessary idiot bluster to set the new president up to look like a hero when he somehow brokers a deal that averts a lockout.

Somehow after the events of the last week I have a feeling that this league will not allow anything to happen that risks losing yet another year in Mike Vick's career...

Michael Vick aside, I agree that there has to be a "number" (or "percent") that is close enough to each side's walk-away number/percent that can satisfy both sides so that there won't have to be a lockout.

The rest of your post states very well the age-old tension between Financial and Human Capital when it comes to finding a balance between the interests of each in the collective bargaining process. Both Financial and Human Capital are essential to the success of nearly every enterprise, with differing degrees of advantage to one side or the other depending on the Industry, ranging from Sweat Shops to Wall Street. At both ends of the spectrum, Management, representing Financial Capital, wants to pay out as little as possible and Labor, representing Human Capital, wants to get as much as possible. At one end of the spectrum, Human Capital has virtually no economic rights (not a value statement); at the other, it holds nearly all the cards.

I have to admit that I haven't studied the economics of the NFL enough to understand how the right "number" should be determined; I can't evaluate whether you are right or wrong about the 60% and the other points you make. If this is a rational process about a rational market, then, as I said at the beginning of my comments, the number exists, assuming good faith on both sides. However, if the number can't be found then something is out of whack; in that case market forces will resolve it in the form of a work stoppage/lockout, whatever form it might take.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Well, instead of complaining about it he might actually try negotiating a new deal with the NFL...

 

[Gon_Trevil]

The NFLPA is coming across as the victims-- they take their whining to the media and we only get reports about their side of the story.

From my point of view, the owners are keeping business at the negotiating table and out of the tabloids, but people side with the players' whining since it's all they can see.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Well, instead of complaining about it he might actually try negotiating a new deal with the NFL...

Don't you realize that he can't ?

The dynamics of being the new Union chief demand that he establish his "toughness". He must force a confrontation to prove it, or be out on his keester for being too "soft". And to confirm it, his entire union membership is purposely selected to be "tough guys", as well, by the Nature of their profession. If he wants to keep his well paid sinecure, he must force a strike/lockout to confirm his tough guy status.

An established NFLPA union chief like Upshaw, could negotiate an agreement to avoid a strike/lockout, this new guy simply can't, and won't.

So you can expect the lockout. Book it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, instead of complaining about it he might actually try negotiating a new deal with the NFL...

The politics of this make that a poor approach for him. He's got influence in D.C. right now, and the smart play is to use it in a way that threatens the owners with the loss of the 'anti-trust exemption' to get the best possible deal. The way to do that is to make the owners seem unreasonable while, at the same time, instilling fear of lost seasons into the fan bases and their elected officials. If it were discovered that the owners were already at the bargaining table and dealing with the players in anything approaching good faith, his D.C. connections would be useless and he'll have been a wasted choice by the players' union.

 

[spacecrime]

That won't change if the players make less money. That is supply and demand. Owners will always charge whatever people will pay.

No, there is much more demand than supply. Many more people want tickets than can buy them.

Pats could raise prices A LOT and still sell out.

I've been on the Pats season tickets wait list for 10 years. When the 2000 non-season tickets go on sale, they sell out in minutes.

If it were simply supply and demand, the Pats would raise and lower prices so that the wait list stayed near zero. Got 50,000 people on the wait list, raise prices. Down to one or two thousand, lower prices.


You are confusing the Patriots with Stubhub. Stubhub charges what the market will bear and it is more than the Pats charge. If the owners wanted to charge whatever people would pay, they would follow the Stubhub model.

 

[spacecrime]

I think it is smart of the players to prepare for a lockout, just as owners need to prepare for not having any players. It would be foolish not to prepare for the worst case scenario.

But I don't understand the Union's loved affair with high rookie salaries at the expense of veterans, or why veterans aren't vocal about it.

Smith balked at the suggestion of a rookie cap, something Colts president Bill Polian and others contend would make pay more equitable between unproven newcomers and proven veterans.

Smith suggested that is unnecessary unless the owners make a concession.

"I've heard the argument and understand the argument that if you have a rookie wage scale, you can use more money on veterans if you want to make the deal," Smith said. "If you want to make a deal like that, where every team guarantees that they'll use every dollar of the cap, then that's OK. But has anyone proposed that?"

So Smith will only consider a rookie cap if the owners pay MORE? Right now the cap gives a range - you must pay at least this but not more than that. A rookie cap would not change how much money the players get as a group, it would just give a bigger slice of teh pie to veterans, and stop this nonsense where Jamarus Russel gets paid more than Brady and Manning.

It's all about the money. I agree with that. And while I understand that players may strike and owners may lock out, I don't see how that will get anyone any more money in the long run. If owners lock out they will never get back the lost ticket/TV sales, and the players will not only lose their pay for that year, they will all be a year older and will never get that year of playing time back.