NFLPA vs NFL in a nutshell

[lamafist]

I admit I was wrong about the 2010 rules although they said nothing about suing. Even so, it could be an empty promise for PR reasons. If they knew that they were going to decertify and the league were going to lock them out, why not offer this knowing the league would never take them up on it? Both sides have thrown out a lot of PR related offers that they knew the other side wouldn't accept only to make them look good for offering.

Again, to get an injuction to stop the league from applying the franchise tag or restricted free agent offers will not prevent the rest of the players to get bonus money for offseason workouts and OTAs. If the owners lose the lockout battle, they have to conduct business as usual including offseason workouts and OTAs. The franchise tag and RFA tenders are separate issues which will likely have these players not signing their tenders until the injuction process is complete. The only players a suit like this will be the players who are affected by the restrictions and the rest of the league will go along business as usual. The only potential snag that could happen league wide is that a week before the season starts or even a couple weeks after, there could be a whole bunch of UFA to hit the market if the players win.

You act like if the players file suit to get an injunction to bar the league from applying the franchise tag and restricted free agent tenders will halt all football activities. It won't. The players can't ask for that. The league cannot do that if they lose their appeal to injoin the lockout. Business will go as usual except for the the players the suit affect who will most likely just continue to sit out until it is resolved.

The players' offer to play 2011 under the 2010 rules entailed remaining unionized, and thus precluded any antitrust suit over the franchise tag or free agency restrictions.

 

[Shelterdog]

The players' offer to play 2011 under the 2010 rules entailed remaining unionized, and thus precluded any antitrust suit over the franchise tag or free agency restrictions.

Got a source for that?

Yeah, I thought not.

 

[lamafist]

So you want all the same things those who support the owners want. Only you blame them for the inability to secure them because they weren't willing to forego them AGAIN just to maintain your Sunday viewing pleasure? That's the irrational anathma. It's not the lockout that is precluding or impeding negotiation of a new CBA. It's the decertification and lawsuit...

Neither the NFL's lockout nor the NFLPA's decertification and lawsuit are impeding the negotiation of a new CBA. As we all remember, the 1993 CBA that ushered in the modern era of the NFL was negotiated and implemented as part of a settlement for the White vs. NFL antitrust suit that was preceded by the union's decertification.

The owners' dissatisfaction with the status quo under the 2006 CBA necessitated the opt-out and then lockout, which in turn necessitated the decertification and lawsuit. All of these maneuvers are just both sides playing the hands they were dealt, in turn. The real impediment to a new CBA being signed is actually pretty simple -- neither side is ready to blink yet.

And btw the billion off the top was never that. It was a fixed % of total revenue designed to offset the change from designated revenue to total revenue. And that % won't work in an environment where taxpayers are increasingly reluctant to foot the bill for new or improved stadiums or training facilities and expansion and investment into untapped markets is a prerequisite to keeping that pie growing. Under the present circumstances there is zero incentive for the haves to keep dragging the havenots and the NFLPA's transient membership along for the ride when they don't stand to make a reasonable profit for their either their investment or their initiative at the end of the day..

Here, you hit on the real meat of the matter. All of the rhetoric about who's to blame for what is just a matter of posturing -- the issue you raise is what needs to be answered for the next CBA to be settled.

While the 2006 CBA and SSA, as crafted by Bob Kraft, were billed as a victory for the players, it was also a coup for the NFL's "have" owners, hence Brown and Wilson being the lone holdouts at that time. Kraft recognized that the owners were inevitably going to have to give the players a cut of the non-shared local revenues, but that he could still avoid an arrangement in which the local revenue streams that he developed would be folded into the NFL's "shared revenues."

The supplemental sharing agreement got enough of the "have-not" owners on board to get the deal made, but kept the lion's share of the non-shared proceeds from his hard work and investment in the Patriots' coffers. The problem is that it only took a couple years for the "have not" owners to realize that the money that Kraft, Jones and Snyder were making was going to drive up the salary cap faster than they could keep up with.

So here's the quandary:

If you set the salary cap at a level commensurate with what the "have" franchises can afford, the "have not" owners opt out; if you set the salary cap at a level the "have not" owners can afford, the players won't sign on, because they're essentially getting cut out of profits made off their labor by the savvier owners, and if you try to craft a system in which the "have" owners have to increase their subsidization of the "have not" owners, you create the scenario you portray where "there is zero incentive for the haves to keep dragging the havenots and the NFLPA's transient membership along for the ride when they don't stand to make a reasonable profit for their either their investment or their initiative."

I think all three sides have legitimate concerns. The players shouldn't have to have their compensation anchored down by the NFL's "weak sister" owners, the "have" owners shouldn't be punished for being proactive investors, and the "have not" owners really can't afford to -- forgive the pun -- keep up with the Joneses.

 

[Rob0729]

The players' offer to play 2011 under the 2010 rules entailed remaining unionized, and thus precluded any antitrust suit over the franchise tag or free agency restrictions.

Here's what Brant said:

the NFLPA, prior to decertification, had suggested that they would continue operating under the existing system while negotiating a new CBA

First, Brant doesn't mention how serious the offer really was. Sugguesting and making a serious offer to come to an agreement. It also doesn't mean that the NFLPA might not have backed out of the deal if negotiations were going bad.

I think you are taking a throw away line in an article and making it into a serious offer. Even if Smith offered it, it was probably because he knew Goodell and the owners would never accept it. And if the owners totally blew his mind and actually accepted the offer, he reserved the right to chance his mind.

Beside, doing this would only assure we would be back in the same place next year. Without either side motivated to get a deal done, they were going to be in an endless pattern of name calling and avoiding to seriously negotiate.

I have never seen one news report covering the offer by the NFLPA to continue the season under any rules. A column by Brant with no facts to support the claim nor any context to what they really offered and whether it was just a sugguestion or a serious offer or if there were any strings attached, how can I take it seriously. You took a single line from a several thousand word column and put a lot of context to the line that wasn't written on the page.

 

[Rob0729]

Lastly the article you produced as proof the NFLPA agreed to not file any claims with the courts contradicts your assertion. In fact, Brandt claims that the NFLPA will be quick with the trigger finger to file collusion charges against the league if the RFA aren't paid well. From his article:

The NFLPA filed a collusion charge on January 18th for the lack of RFA activity in 2010, still pending.

The NFL knows it must be careful with the prospect of having another “limbo” RFA group in 2011 while in an antitrust litigation with the players. Players such as Brady v. NFL plaintiffs Logan Mankins and Vincent Jackson already went through limbo status in 2010 and have been given the Franchise tag in 2011. The NFL knows that, unlike in 2010, not only will the NFLPA be watching spending on the talented group of RFAs, but the courts will be as well.

So not only did the NFLPA file collusion charges in January before they decertified, Brandt claims that if there is a free agency that they might do it again.

So apparently the NFLPA agreed to not file a lawsuit at least unless of course they actually file one because their free agents are getting paid enough.


Looking at the owners' side of things, would they agree to use the 2010 rules when the players were already filing grievences for the 2010 spending?

 

[Ring 6]

The NFLPA was going to do anything to forestall decertification because if the CBA expired before they decertified they would have had to wait a period of time before they could deceritfy. 6 months I think.
The players offer of extending the deal the owners opted out of was hardly anything of interest to the owners. Ultimately it amounted to keep going with the deal you want to lock us out to get rid of and dont lock us out.
I don't know how 'don't lock us out and we'll agree to not be locked out' is a serious negotiation.

 

[Ring 6]

Neither the NFL's lockout nor the NFLPA's decertification and lawsuit are impeding the negotiation of a new CBA. As we all remember, the 1993 CBA that ushered in the modern era of the NFL was negotiated and implemented as part of a settlement for the White vs. NFL antitrust suit that was preceded by the union's decertification.

The owners' dissatisfaction with the status quo under the 2006 CBA necessitated the opt-out and then lockout, which in turn necessitated the decertification and lawsuit. All of these maneuvers are just both sides playing the hands they were dealt, in turn. The real impediment to a new CBA being signed is actually pretty simple -- neither side is ready to blink yet.



Here, you hit on the real meat of the matter. All of the rhetoric about who's to blame for what is just a matter of posturing -- the issue you raise is what needs to be answered for the next CBA to be settled.

While the 2006 CBA and SSA, as crafted by Bob Kraft, were billed as a victory for the players, it was also a coup for the NFL's "have" owners, hence Brown and Wilson being the lone holdouts at that time. Kraft recognized that the owners were inevitably going to have to give the players a cut of the non-shared local revenues, but that he could still avoid an arrangement in which the local revenue streams that he developed would be folded into the NFL's "shared revenues."

The supplemental sharing agreement got enough of the "have-not" owners on board to get the deal made, but kept the lion's share of the non-shared proceeds from his hard work and investment in the Patriots' coffers. The problem is that it only took a couple years for the "have not" owners to realize that the money that Kraft, Jones and Snyder were making was going to drive up the salary cap faster than they could keep up with.

So here's the quandary:

If you set the salary cap at a level commensurate with what the "have" franchises can afford, the "have not" owners opt out; if you set the salary cap at a level the "have not" owners can afford, the players won't sign on, because they're essentially getting cut out of profits made off their labor by the savvier owners, and if you try to craft a system in which the "have" owners have to increase their subsidization of the "have not" owners, you create the scenario you portray where "there is zero incentive for the haves to keep dragging the havenots and the NFLPA's transient membership along for the ride when they don't stand to make a reasonable profit for their either their investment or their initiative."

I think all three sides have legitimate concerns. The players shouldn't have to have their compensation anchored down by the NFL's "weak sister" owners, the "have" owners shouldn't be punished for being proactive investors, and the "have not" owners really can't afford to -- forgive the pun -- keep up with the Joneses.

I think the issue I see with your point of view is that it implies the players have a say in what the owners decide to offer them. The owners as a group, of course, must set up a system where the weakest of their franchises does well enough. To suggest the players can decide that the cap should be set at a level unacceptable to any of the owners is to ignore the basic structure of a business and a group of league negotiation collectively.
That type of thought process is why we have the situation we do.

 

[lamafist]

Lastly the article you produced as proof the NFLPA agreed to not file any claims with the courts contradicts your assertion. In fact, Brandt claims that the NFLPA will be quick with the trigger finger to file collusion charges against the league if the RFA aren't paid well. From his article:

So not only did the NFLPA file collusion charges in January before they decertified, Brandt claims that if there is a free agency that they might do it again.

So apparently the NFLPA agreed to not file a lawsuit at least unless of course they actually file one because their free agents are getting paid enough.


Looking at the owners' side of things, would they agree to use the 2010 rules when the players were already filing grievences for the 2010 spending?

Looking at the owners' side of things, I'd say they have absolutely no reason to agree to play 2011 under the 2010 rules. They'd have to be nuts to -- as I've repeatedly said, any arrangement in which the players can drive a hard line in negotiations while still earning their paychecks totally saps the owners' leverage. That's why I find it so hard to understand why anybody would think that the players wouldn't jump on such a deal.

Oh, and you're right that there probably would be a lawsuit over collusion if teams weren't over-spending in free agency. Making an agreement with the NFLPA that compelled them to stay certified would only offer the antitrust protections entailed by the original CBA. But this is all well beyond academic at this point, considering that we've already established that the owners would have to be crazy to accept that offer.

 

[lamafist]

I think the issue I see with your point of view is that it implies the players have a say in what the owners decide to offer them. The owners as a group, of course, must set up a system where the weakest of their franchises does well enough. To suggest the players can decide that the cap should be set at a level unacceptable to any of the owners is to ignore the basic structure of a business and a group of league negotiation collectively.
That type of thought process is why we have the situation we do.

It sounds kind of like you're objecting to basic principle of collective bargaining.

Of course the players have a say in where a salary cap would be set, because if they don't sign onto it, then there is no salary cap. A salary cap, absent a CBA, is a huge violation of the players' rights as workers, and the players have every right to set the price for which they'll collectively waive them. Of course, the owners don't have to accept that price. They can in turn tell the players what they're prepared to pay. And suddenly, they're bargaining!

The players don't really have any input when it comes to the owners' revenue-sharing agreement, nor should they. So it's on the owners to try to work things out amongst themselves or they'll never be able to come up with a proposal that make both Jerries Jones and Richardson happy, and is something they can sell the players on.

 

[Shelterdog]

Looking at the owners' side of things, I'd say they have absolutely no reason to agree to play 2011 under the 2010 rules. They'd have to be nuts to -- as I've repeatedly said, any arrangement in which the players can drive a hard line in negotiations while still earning their paychecks totally saps the owners' leverage. That's why I find it so hard to understand why anybody would think that the players wouldn't jump on such a deal.

Oh, and you're right that there probably would be a lawsuit over collusion if teams weren't over-spending in free agency. Making an agreement with the NFLPA that compelled them to stay certified would only offer the antitrust protections entailed by the original CBA. But this is all well beyond academic at this point, considering that we've already established that the owners would have to be crazy to accept that offer.

You're confusing two concepts.

1.) Would the NFLPA accept a deal where 2011 is played under 2010 rules and they agree not to decertify and they waive antitrust claims relating to the 2011 season? Maybe. (I'm not sure if you actually could waive prospective antitrust claims or force the NFLPA to remain a union but lets pretend they could.)

2.) Did they make an offer like this? Not clear. They said they'd be willing to play under 2010 rules while negotiating but the exact terms are unclear and I haven't read anything about them waiving future antitrust claims or agreeing to remain a union.

 

[lamafist]

You're confusing two concepts.

1.) Would the NFLPA accept a deal where 2011 is played under 2010 rules and they agree not to decertify and they waive antitrust claims relating to the 2011 season? Maybe. (I'm not sure if you actually could waive prospective antitrust claims or force the NFLPA to remain a union but lets pretend they could.)

2.) Did they make an offer like this? Not clear. They said they'd be willing to play under 2010 rules while negotiating but the exact terms are unclear and I haven't read anything about them waiving future antitrust claims or agreeing to remain a union.

If the NFLPA, while still certified, enters into a binding agreement with the NFL to play 2011 under the 2010 rules, that agreement -- essentially, a one-year CBA -- remains in effect even if the NFLPA decertified the next day. So the NFL would be as safe from antitrust suit as they were in 2010 -- which, as Rob0729 pointed out, isn't absolute.

But again, this is all pretty much irrelevant. The fact that the players need football in 2011 more than the owners do doesn't make either side more right or wrong. All of the talk about who forced whom to do what and whether the owners were more intent on their lockout than the players were on their lawsuit is just pointless posturing and PR.

The fact is, the lawsuit and lockout were made inevitable by the inability of the two sides to come to an agreement. The only issues that really matter are the ones getting in the way of the new CBA.

 

[Shelterdog]

If the NFLPA, while still certified, enters into a binding agreement with the NFL to play 2011 under the 2010 rules, that agreement -- essentially, a one-year CBA -- remains in effect even if the NFLPA decertified the next day. So the NFL would be as safe from antitrust suit as they were in 2010 -- which, as Rob0729 pointed out, isn't absolute.

Maybe, maybe not--it depends on the deal. That's why it's impossible to tell what the NFLPA was proposing-where they proposing a one year CBA extension under 2010 rules or where they saying continue under 2010 rules (and thus get signing bonuses and have free agency) until negotiations broke down--at which point they decertify and sue?

The devil is in the details. All we hear if second hand PR so it's impossible to tell what the real offers were out there.

 

[lamafist]

Maybe, maybe not--it depends on the deal. That's why it's impossible to tell what the NFLPA was proposing-where they proposing a one year CBA extension under 2010 rules or where they saying continue under 2010 rules (and thus get signing bonuses and have free agency) until negotiations broke down--at which point they decertify and sue?

The devil is in the details. All we hear if second hand PR so it's impossible to tell what the real offers were out there.

Actually, this is one legal point I'm pretty certain of -- a union decertifying does not free its former members from bargaining agreements entered into as a union.

 

[Shelterdog]

Actually, this is one legal point I'm pretty certain of -- a union decertifying does not free its former members from bargaining agreements entered into as a union.

That's not what I said. What was the actual agreement they were willing to enter--was it "play under 2010 rules until negotiations stop be it a day or a year" or was it "one year extension of a CBA"?

 

[Ring 6]

It sounds kind of like you're objecting to basic principle of collective bargaining.

I cannot fathom how you could get that from my comments.

Of course the players have a say in where a salary cap would be set, because if they don't sign onto it, then there is no salary cap. A salary cap, absent a CBA, is a huge violation of the players' rights as workers, and the players have every right to set the price for which they'll collectively waive them. Of course, the owners don't have to accept that price. They can in turn tell the players what they're prepared to pay. And suddenly, they're bargaining!

Did you actually read what I wrote? I did not say the players have no say in where the cap would be set, I said the players have no say in what the owners decide to offer them. So your condescending comments here are off base.

The players don't really have any input when it comes to the owners' revenue-sharing agreement, nor should they. So it's on the owners to try to work things out amongst themselves or they'll never be able to come up with a proposal that make both Jerries Jones and Richardson happy, and is something they can sell the players on.

This I agree with, but your previous comments have indicated that you feel there is something wrong with the owners basing their offer on making everyone profitable, and that the less profitable teams shouldn't 'drag down' what the players make. Your comments have indicated you feel that the lesser profitable teams should suffer in order for the players to get more $. The owners will never take that approach, nor should they. If a 100mill cap makes the least profitable of their owners happy with his profit, a 110 mill cap puts 5 teams in the red, and a 200mill cap makes Bob Kraft a tidy profit, the owners will not accept a cap above 100mill.
They are not negotating for what an outsider would consider fair, and agreeing to a deal that says, to paraphrase comments you have made before, the Bills need to suck it up or sell, they are negotiating for a deal acceptable to all of their owners.

 

[Ring 6]

If the NFLPA, while still certified, enters into a binding agreement with the NFL to play 2011 under the 2010 rules, that agreement -- essentially, a one-year CBA -- remains in effect even if the NFLPA decertified the next day. So the NFL would be as safe from antitrust suit as they were in 2010 -- which, as Rob0729 pointed out, isn't absolute.

But again, this is all pretty much irrelevant. The fact that the players need football in 2011 more than the owners do doesn't make either side more right or wrong. All of the talk about who forced whom to do what and whether the owners were more intent on their lockout than the players were on their lawsuit is just pointless posturing and PR.

The fact is, the lawsuit and lockout were made inevitable by the inability of the two sides to come to an agreement. The only issues that really matter are the ones getting in the way of the new CBA.

The players never offered to enter into a binding agreement to play 2011 under the 2010 rules, that is a complete fabrication.
Even if they had, why would the owners agree to extend the CBA they opted out of and are locking the players out from.
Thats like saying I wanted $300,000 for my house and you offered me a guaranteed $150,000 and think that should have solved the problem. An offer of exnteding the 2010 rules would have been pointless, because those are the rules the owners find entirely unacceptable. Had such an offer been made it would have been hollow at best.

 

[lamafist]

The players never offered to enter into a binding agreement to play 2011 under the 2010 rules, that is a complete fabrication.
Even if they had, why would the owners agree to extend the CBA they opted out of and are locking the players out from.
Thats like saying I wanted $300,000 for my house and you offered me a guaranteed $150,000 and think that should have solved the problem. An offer of exnteding the 2010 rules would have been pointless, because those are the rules the owners find entirely unacceptable. Had such an offer been made it would have been hollow at best.

I never made it out like they sent the league some official signed document or anything. We just know they expressed some interest in agreeing to play under 2010 rules until a new CBA was agreed upon. The discussion of how that might work was just my indulging some other posters in fruitless speculation, how it would likely work if the NFL were interested.

... which you and I are in complete agreement, is something the owners would have no reason to be.

A minor point of correction, though -- the 2010 rules aren't really that much like those of the rest of the 2006 CBA the owners opted out of. The 2010 year had no salary cap and no salary floor, a 6 year requirement for unrestricted free agency, and a byzantine rule limiting the average annual value of a renegotiated contract to no more than 30% higher than that of the rookie deal, excluding the signing bonus, but including other types of bonuses and escalators, etc. etc. etc.

There's actually a lot in those rules for both sides to dislike. But any scenario in which the players are still getting paid while negotiating swings the leverage very much in their favor, so the owners would have to be crazy to go for it. I wouldn't say this would make the players' offer "hollow" so much as "frivolous."

 

[lamafist]

I cannot fathom how you could get that from my comments.


Did you actually read what I wrote? I did not say the players have no say in where the cap would be set, I said the players have no say in what the owners decide to offer them. So your condescending comments here are off base.

Apologies for any condescension. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the semantic distinction between having a say in what the owners decide to offer them and having a say in where the cap would be set. If I indicated that I felt the players could in any way compel the owners to agree to anything, well, the continued absence of a new CBA would serve as evidence otherwise, right?

This I agree with, but your previous comments have indicated that you feel there is something wrong with the owners basing their offer on making everyone profitable, and that the less profitable teams shouldn't 'drag down' what the players make. Your comments have indicated you feel that the lesser profitable teams should suffer in order for the players to get more $. The owners will never take that approach, nor should they. If a 100mill cap makes the least profitable of their owners happy with his profit, a 110 mill cap puts 5 teams in the red, and a 200mill cap makes Bob Kraft a tidy profit, the owners will not accept a cap above 100mill.
They are not negotating for what an outsider would consider fair, and agreeing to a deal that says, to paraphrase comments you have made before, the Bills need to suck it up or sell, they are negotiating for a deal acceptable to all of their owners.

Yeah, I've probably been a bit too vehement about the less successful owners in comments past. There's really nothing to be gained for getting all worked up in piling blame on them for failing to cultivate their local revenue streams the way Kraft has. It's better to focus on the present situation and what can be done now, as opposed to getting upset over what should have been done 5 years ago.

And you're absolutely right -- a CBA that doesn't address the very real concerns of the Wilsons, Fords and Browns is going to be a total non-starter, and as much as it might be better for the NFL long-term to force them to sell out to more motivated entrepreneurs like Snyder and Kraft, that's also not a realistic approach to the issue. The problem is, neither is expecting the players to agree to a salary cap structure that cuts them out of the profits that the NFL's smartest money-men are making off their talents.

So how does one devise an arrangement in which the low-revenue teams aren't forced to pay more than they're comfortably able, the high-revenue teams aren't forced to subsidize their less profitable breathren, and the players aren't having their compensation artificially anchored down to what the NFL's weakest franchises can afford? There's really only one way to meet all three of these requirements, and that's to get rid of the cap and floor altogether. The poorer teams can cut payroll and hope to still get fans to come by adopting a Moneyball-styled system, the richer teams will be able to get more in return for paying more, and assemble teams of all-stars, and the players' total compensation will be neither artificially bolstered or hindered.

Of course, while that might be the only "fair" solution, in the long run it would wreck much of what we love about the NFL, and leave the owners, players and fans all the worse for it.

So I think we all can agree that the default way of establishing wages by competition among employers for talent isn't optimal in the NFL. Every CBA agreement since 1993 has settled on complicated formula that eventually produces something very close to a 50-50 split, and it's worked out pretty brilliants during what's been a golden-age for the NFL. So why not anymore?

The NFL is more profitable than it's ever been, but the revenues have never been distributed more inequitably. This was never a problem before because until recently, the shared revenue streams made up the lion's share of the NFL's income. This is no longer the case, and the revenue disparity is widening every season. Even if the owners' win all of the concessions from the players they've been after, it would only be a band-aid fix. The next time the CBA expired, if the lesser earning franchises haven't been able to match the high-revenue teams' growth, they'd need scale back the players' cut even more.

A simple fix would be to dramatically expand the scope of the NFL's revenue sharing agreement. Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft would cry foul, and with some good cause, but it wouldn't all that different from the way the NFL operated when they bought their teams. The problem is that it would just reward and further enable the owners who haven't been investing in cultivating their local revenue streams to live off the efforts of their more active peers.

To me, the only real solution would be an adjustment to CBA and SSA in which both the players and higher-income owners both assume some added responsibility for revenue sharing in a way that a) ensures its expenditure on improvements to franchises' future money-making capacity and b) includes some return on invest.

 

[Ring 6]

Apologies for any condescension. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the semantic distinction between having a say in what the owners decide to offer them and having a say in where the cap would be set.

I took your post to indicate you felt the owners should settle on something that doesnt satisfy the lower revenue teams in order to make the players happier with the deal. My point was the owners will not sacrifice their own under any circumstances.

Yeah, I've probably been a bit too vehement about the less successful owners in comments past. There's really nothing to be gained for getting all worked up in piling blame on them for failing to cultivate their local revenue streams the way Kraft has. It's better to focus on the present situation and what can be done now, as opposed to getting upset over what should have been done 5 years ago.

I dont think its a matter of getting upset, but its that these owners either are not able to (every market isnt Boston and every team hasnt had the success of the Patriots, which is at least 50% of the reason Kraft genreates so much additional reveune) or simply havent done as well in generating local revenues and the league is not going to tell them too bad for you. The league is going to make sure the lesser franchsises do well, and the wealthy ones doing real well is a side effect.

And you're absolutely right -- a CBA that doesn't address the very real concerns of the Wilsons, Fords and Browns is going to be a total non-starter, and as much as it might be better for the NFL long-term to force them to sell out to more motivated entrepreneurs like Snyder and Kraft, that's also not a realistic approach to the issue.

I don't think it matters much to the other owners. Kraft doesnt really care about Fords local revenues. Also, there are many factors in how much local revenue they can earn, and you seem to be limiting it to lack of effort or ability, which is a very simplistic approach.

There's really only one way to meet all three of these requirements, and that's to get rid of the cap and floor altogether.

I disagree there. Setting the cap at a level that allows all teams to operate profitably (and at an acceptable profit level) is the solution. I don't understand the thinking that the players should have to particpate in the local revenie generated by wealthy teams that has never been part of the cap, or that the owners should agree to a cap that forces the lesser teams to lose money and be subsidized.

The poorer teams can cut payroll and hope to still get fans to come by adopting a Moneyball-styled system, the richer teams will be able to get more in return for paying more, and assemble teams of all-stars, and the players' total compensation will be neither artificially bolstered or hindered.

This will ruin the league. The competitveness of the games is the biggest attraction the league has. This would destroy it. For the teams that are comeptitive no salary cap will cause costs to rise out of sight. Bob kraft has said he would not own a team in a league without a cap. Few smart owners would.

Of course, while that might be the only "fair" solution, in the long run it would wreck much of what we love about the NFL, and leave the owners, players and fans all the worse for it.

Agreed

So I think we all can agree that the default way of establishing wages by competition among employers for talent isn't optimal in the NFL. Every CBA agreement since 1993 has settled on complicated formula that eventually produces something very close to a 50-50 split, and it's worked out pretty brilliants during what's been a golden-age for the NFL. So why not anymore?

That is a very rudimentery approach to a very complex problem.
First, the split is actually 60/40 after excluding some revenue, which results in 50/50. That does not mean that will continue under different situations. It does not account for what percentage expense makes up of the 40% the owners keep. If exepnses are rising faster than revenues (or acutally faster than 40% of revenues) the real split changes as well. It is entirely possible that a 50/50 split translated reasonably to the bottom line in the past, but no longer does look into the future.
All businesses having changing expense structures. Why does the price of lettuce have to go up? Because the price of gas, a large part of the cost in delivering lettuce to the buyer goes up.
Saying 50/50 used to be good why shouldn't it always be is naive.

The NFL is more profitable than it's ever been,

That is certainly debatable.

but the revenues have never been distributed more inequitably.

That is as well. Again when your side gets a percentage in its pocket and mine gets a percentage that it must cover all of the expense from, the equation of the REAL split changes constantly.

This was never a problem before because until recently, the shared revenue streams made up the lion's share of the NFL's income. This is no longer the case, and the revenue disparity is widening every season.

But the revenue that is relevant to the players and the CBA is the revenue they receive a percentage of.
This is where we are far apart. If some teams show a tremendous increase in the non includable revenue that has no impact on the split. If at the same time expenses increase, and the profitability is dropping exclusive of the non-included revenue, the split must be altered.
In other words if you have 2 teams, and they each made $1,000,000 in profit, and one found a NONINCLUDED revenue source to generate an additional $1,000,000 while expenses drove the $1,000,000 profit from includable down to $500,000 then the split must change, not stay the same because adding the increase in non-includable gets them to the same profit level.
Not sure if that is completely clear, but another way to put it is that the owners will only accept a system where everyone is profitable, so the pertinent financials are the team in the worst shape not the one in the best shape, or the average. Anything else would be a suicidal business move for a league of owners.

Even if the owners' win all of the concessions from the players they've been after, it would only be a band-aid fix. The next time the CBA expired, if the lesser earning franchises haven't been able to match the high-revenue teams' growth, they'd need scale back the players' cut even more.

To make it easier I will call includable revenue 'football revenue' and local revenue excluded from the cap calculation 'other income'
The owners need a system where every team is profitable on football revenue,and the other revenue in excess of that is profit that the NFLPA* really has no claim to.

A simple fix would be to dramatically expand the scope of the NFL's revenue sharing agreement. Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft would cry foul, and with some good cause, but it wouldn't all that different from the way the NFL operated when they bought their teams. The problem is that it would just reward and further enable the owners who haven't been investing in cultivating their local revenue streams to live off the efforts of their more active peers.

But that would simply be for the sake of transferring more money from owners to players. Why would the owners have any interest in that?

To me, the only real solution would be an adjustment to CBA and SSA in which both the players and higher-income owners both assume some added responsibility for revenue sharing in a way that a) ensures its expenditure on improvements to franchises' future money-making capacity and b) includes some return on invest.

I think 'other revenue' hasn't been part of the equation all along, so shouldnt be considered here either.
It is wrong IMO, the use 'other revenue' and its sharing among owners as a way to raise the cap, and make that revenue a subsidy to a franchsie that cant make a profit under the cap.
The revenue sharing is not designed to mitigate payroll expense, or resce a team from losing money. It is shared because they are a group of owners, and they believe each of the 32 benefits from the existence of the other 31.
Wrapping that revenue sharing up into the cap and the CBA is just a ploy by the NFLPA* to take the revenue they do not particpate in and find a back door into getting a share.

 

[Ring 6]

I never made it out like they sent the league some official signed document or anything. We just know they expressed some interest in agreeing to play under 2010 rules until a new CBA was agreed upon. The discussion of how that might work was just my indulging some other posters in fruitless speculation, how it would likely work if the NFL were interested.

But it has no relevance. Of course the players would agree to 2010 rules because it was so player friendly the owners have chosen to not have a league rather than continue those rules.
Its akin to me wanting to refinance my 6% mortgage at a 4% going rate, and my current bank telling me I should stay with them because they offered to let me continue to pay them 6%.

A minor point of correction, though -- the 2010 rules aren't really that much like those of the rest of the 2006 CBA the owners opted out of. The 2010 year had no salary cap and no salary floor, a 6 year requirement for unrestricted free agency, and a byzantine rule limiting the average annual value of a renegotiated contract to no more than 30% higher than that of the rookie deal, excluding the signing bonus, but including other types of bonuses and escalators, etc. etc. etc.

There's actually a lot in those rules for both sides to dislike. But any scenario in which the players are still getting paid while negotiating swings the leverage very much in their favor, so the owners would have to be crazy to go for it. I wouldn't say this would make the players' offer "hollow" so much as "frivolous."

By hollow I mean that an offer that the other side would never accept, isn't really a legitmate offer.