2011 NFL-NFLPA CBA Negotiations

[jmt57]

NFL Labor pains, Part Four | The 18 game season | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 12/22/2010

6. The Enhanced 18 game season

This is the game-changing issue in these negotiations. In the present CBA there is the stated right of the NFL to expand the regular season, which has been noted in comments by Commissioner Goodell. With the increased emphasis on player safety, however, Goodell is smart to not unilaterally impose this kind of extension to the season.

Forecast: The enhanced season will happen, probably starting in 2012. Offseason and training camp contact will be limited; a bye week will be added; gameday rosters will increase from 45 players to 49 or 50 with an overall increase in roster size to 54 or 55 and practice squad from 8 to 10. Despite the apparent contradiction to the player safety initiatives, the 18-game season will happen as the complaints will be drowned out by the pronouncements of labor peace for the foreseeable future.

 

[jmt57]

NFL Labor pains, Part Five | Owners gather, Players go to Congress | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 1/19/2011

There are eventful and talkative days in the game behind the game, the NFL labor battle. Unfortunately, the talking is not with each other. They are apart, both literally and figuratively. Let’s look at who met where and why:


The owners

The owners gathered for an important meeting in Atlanta to update the full membership and discuss strategy. They have committed to another meeting on February 15th in Philadelphia. These meetings will shape their collective position with the NFLPA.

I am often asked whether the owners are united in their quest to forge a new economic system with the players. There have been conflicting signs at times, with owners such as Robert Kraft of the Patriots and John Mara of the Giants sounding optimistic about a new agreement while owners such as the two Jerrys -- Richardson of the Panthers and Jones of the Cowboys -- sounding pessimistic.

My sense is that the owners are united and everything about their message is strategic, surgical and choreographed.

The players

The NFLPA has ramped up its communications with now-frequent media conference calls and a social media campaign to block a lockout. They are harping on their declared public relations themes, such as:

• The owners opted out of the CBA, not the players
• The owners would be implementing a work stoppage, not the players
• The owners are claiming the system doesn’t work, not the players
• In this age of financial transparency, the owners refuse to show us their books
• Let us play!

The Collusion case

After initially delaying their threatened collusion claim against the NFL, the NFLPA has now filed this claim. The claim was deferred by the NFLPA in the spirit of good faith bargaining and seen as an encouraging sign of progress in the negotiations. Now that hope has been dashed with yet another case in front of Special Master Stephen Burbank, as he is just wrapping up hearings on the television contract case.

Mr. Smith goes to Washington

On Tuesday and today NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith, a group of players and their families will meet with Congressmen in Washington.

Why the visit? First, the NFLPA wants to try to level the playing field knowing that the NFL has significant lobbying muscle in Washington.

 

[jmt57]

NFL Labor pains, part six | Q & A in this week's CBA events | National Football Post | 1/26/2011

What, in your opinion, is the biggest issue to be decided in this negotiation?

The splitting of $8.5 billion of gross revenues coming into the NFL. There are two parts to the division: (1) what percentage goes to the players, and (2) what overall revenue number is the percentage coming from.

A major issue in this debate has been pegging the revenue number with an “apples-to-apples” comparison. The most recent players' percentage -- from the 2009 Salary Cap -- was 59.5% of TFR (Total Football Revenues), but the percentage came after a $1 billion setoff from the gross revenue number was taken by the NFL for its risk in operating the business. The NFL initially proposed setting off a further $1 billion, although they have come off that number in more recent proposals to the union.

The players' percentage before 2006 was 64% of DGR (Designated Gross Revenues), a much smaller number that TFR. I would expect the next CBA to have percentages pegged to a “net-net” number, a net revenue number after the NFL deduction. The players' percentage will then be lower, perhaps barely over 50%, but it will be pegged to an identifiable revenue number post-offset.

As we see, regarding the players' percentage, the key issue is not so much what percentage, but percentage of what number.

Is the 18-game schedule still a key issue?

Absolutely. Rooney’s comments notwithstanding, the 18-game schedule is not coming off the table. It has long been the game-changing issue in this CBA negotiation as it answers the two key needs for ownership:

(1) A new and important revenue source that will produce new income from television, sponsors, tickets and suite sales, licensing, event activation, etc.; and (2) An answer to the problem with the meaningless preseason (by slicing its length in half).

So you think there is a deal to be made here?

I do. It will be pegged off of the most recent Cap number -- $128 million ($123 million with a $5 million adjustment due to the uncapped year). And I think the deal will include the following:

• Small year-to-year increases from that $128 million 2009 Cap number and the continuation of the Cap
• An 18 game season to be implemented in 2012.
• Upgraded health benefits, injury protection and post-career medical coverage.
• An independent appeals process for drug testing but not for personal conduct.
• Greater recovery rights of bonus money paid to players who get into trouble.
• The continued application of the Franchise tag.
• A rookie salary scale dramatically reducing pay for top picks with savings directed to benefits and salary for active and retired players.
• Incentives for owners who maximize marketing and ancillary income for their franchises.
• Increased funding to retired player programs from both sides.

There is a deal to be made here. And I think it will be made. The better question is when.

 

[jmt57]

Pash: “Let’s not get to the point where we are flat on our backs” | ProFootballTalk | 1/27/2011

“We don’t have a healthy business model,” NFL chief negotiator Jeff Pash said Thursday.

There was a lot to take away from Thursday’s 90-minute session with the media, but the league tried to drive home two main points.

1. NFL teams and its players will begin losing a truckload of money starting in March, so there is “heavy incentive” for both sides to get an agreement.

2. The league doesn’t believe their current business model is sustainable.

“Let’s not get to the point where we are flat on our backs,” Pash said. “Let’s not get to the point where we talk about contraction.”

It seems crazy that a system that has led to huge growth over the last decade is unsustainable. But the NFL employees that met with the media Thursday said that was the case. (Here’s who spoke from the NFL: Pash, SVP of Public Relations Greg Aiello, EVP NFL Ventures and Business Operations Eric Grubman, SVP Labor Operations Peter Ruocco, and SVP/Treasurer Joe Siclare.)

Pash said the NFL didn’t want to be like the housing market or the dotcom industry before their bubbles burst. He referenced the President’s State of the Union speech, saying the league needs to invest more in the future.

“There are very powerful reasons for both sides to get an agreement by the beginning of March,” Pash said.

 

[jmt57]

Sources: NFL Lockout Rumors Take Optimistic Turn, 18-Game Schedule Likely for 2012 - NFL - NESN.com - 1/18/2011

NESN.com's Patriots beat writer Jeff Howe spoke with sources who say that there is optimism that an owners' lockout of the 2011 NFL season can be avoided.

"Hearing from sources now there's optimism about avoiding the lockout. 18-game season and rookie scale are basically a done deal," Howe tweeted on Tuesday.

Howe was also told that while an agreement for the 18-game schedule seems to be in place, the change likely won't take effect until the 2012 season.

"[A schedule change in] 2011 is a possibility but sounds unlikely."

There had been plenty of back-and-forth between the owners and the players about whether or not the league would move to an 18-game schedule, but it appears that the owners may have won out there.

While the owners seem to be getting what they want with the 18-game schedule, they still need to get on the same page for a new collective bargaining agreement to be reached.

"Biggest snag remaining, sources say, is revenue sharing between owners, who need to come together before CBA can be reached," Howe also tweeted.

 

[jmt57]

Return of Franchise Tag Indicates NFL May Avoid Lockout in March - NFL - NESN.com - 1/27/2011

Word came down Thursday that the NFL expects the franchise tag will be in play in February, and that could be the first bit of tangible evidence that indicates there won't be a lockout in March.

Based on a number of conversations I've had with a handful of league sources over the last week and a half, Thursday's news might have been enough to show the owners' hand.

In all likelihood, the NFL's owners have no desire to use their trump card and lock out the players once the collective-bargaining agreement expires March 4.

In its most simplistic form, the owners don't want a lockout because they'll lose money.

If you look more closely, though, over the next five weeks, the owners will continue to make concessions that will indicate they're willing to revert back to the way the league was run in 2010, and the franchise tag -- which was in question with the negotiations for a new CBA -- is the first domino to fall.

During his season-ending news conference, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick sounded optimistic that there would be some room for negotiations that would allow each team to conduct its offseason workouts. This would happen, Belichick and others have believed, if the CBA expired to help coaches and players move forward through the offseason to make sure the players are conditioned -- both physically on the field and mentally in the playbook -- to start the regular season as soon as possible if a new CBA was reached later in the summer.

If the owners and the NFL Players Association reach a tentative agreement, there's no telling whether it will be month-to-month or for the full league year (March 2011 to March 2012). However, league sources believe the owners will welcome the players to work out with open arms, and the players will be more than willing.

Now, the NFL and its owners are going to start this string of concessions, which started with the franchise tag and will turn into an invitation to start offseason workouts at the team facilities. Once the players begin working out, the owners might be banking on the hope that the NFLPA gets ticked off over a lack of progress with the CBA discussions and stages a strike. Thus, the players would turn into the bad guys in the eyes of the fans. (If the discussions really break apart, some speculate the owners could do something to push the NFLPA in that direction, especially after the players report for workouts.)

Whether or not the NFLPA chooses to go in that direction remains to be seen, but at the very least, Thursday's news appears to have tipped the owners' hand. They have no interest in locking out the players.

 

[jmt57]

NFL stresses immediate consequences of possible lockout | ProFootballTalk | Gregg Rosenthal | 1/27/2011

Keep in mind these are numbers provided by the NFL.

1. By the league’s estimate, 569 players will be affected in March by a lockout. Of those, 495 players are scheduled to be free agents in 2011, with the assumption that the league goes back to a system where four accrued seasons are needed to become a free agent. That number includes 170 starters and 70 Pro Bowl players.

It will be the biggest free-agent class ever, and it will have the highest percentage of starters available ever.

They also counted 74 players with roster or option bonuses due in March, which have a total of $143.5 million due to those players.

2. The NFL said the league already is beginning to see the labor uncertainty affect their bottom line in some deals with sponsors. The league believes $120 million in revenue will be lost by March of 2011 without a deal. By August, the number climbs to $350 million.

The league estimated the clubs and its players will lose up to $1 billion if the CBA is reached just prior to the regular season, which is money the league claims it won’t get back right away. The league believes they would lose $400 million in revenue per-week during the regular season.

3. The league compared the so-called “lockout insurance” clauses in the TV contracts to a home equity line of credit.

“Whatever we collect, we have to repay with interest in the event of missed games,” NFL chief negotiator Jeff Pash said.

 

[jmt57]

Will the union break in March, not September? | ProFootballTalk | Mike Florio | 1/26/2011

Conventional wisdom in NFL circles is and has been that, once players miss a paycheck of two in September, they’ll collapse.

But the money doesn’t ordinarily begin to flow in September. For those players whose contracts have expired, signing bonuses and roster bonuses are paid in early March, as part of the free-agency frenzy that sees millions of dollars change hands in a short period of time. And while a majority of the league’s players are under contract for 2011, and thus won’t lose any money other than individually-negotiated workout bonuses before September, those players whose shot at getting paid large chunks of cash will be delayed by a lockout will be very, very vocal.

Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie was the first. Chances are that others will follow suit once March 4 comes and goes without the doors to the free-agent market swinging open for business.

“This is a totally unfair fight,” Whitlock said. “It’s become cliche to say this is an argument between millionaires and billionaires. No. This is an argument between spoiled rich kids and their parents. Once the parents cut off the money, the mouthy rich kids turn beeyoch quick.”

As to the notion that NFLPA executive director De Smith recently declared, “We are at war!”, Whitlock offered up this comparison: “Remember the Republican Guard surrendering before we ever fired a shot during Desert Storm? We’re about to see a reenactment.”

Whitlock also recommends following any and all NFL players on Twitter, because that’s where many of them will be venting their frustrations.

So as the NFL tries to keep 32 folks in line and on message, the union will be desperately trying to corral 1,700 feral cats.

 

[jmt57]

NFL players union says CBS College Sports Network rejected ads because of CBA content - latimes.com - 1/31/2011

The NFL Players Association says its TV ad that was supposed to air during a college football all-star game this weekend, was rejected by CBS College Sports Network because the message was connected to labor negotiations.

George Atallah, the union's assistant executive director, said Monday the 30-second commercial was slotted to appear four times on Saturday's broadcast, a day before the Super Bowl.

The ad shows empty seats and a padlocked gate at a stadium, and includes union president Kevin Mawae saying, "We want to play."

CBS spokesman Dana McClintock declined comment. However, he did say CBS College Sports Network would not have accepted ads from the owners' side, either.

The labor deal between the league and players expires in early March.

 

[jmt57]

NFL, players union to negotiate Saturday | National Football Post | Aaron Wilson | 1/31/2011

It must have been a positive meeting today in New York between NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith.

Afterward, the NFL and the players' union issued a joint statement that a negotiating session will be conducted Saturday in the Dallas area where the Super Bowl is being held. And that session will be followed up by other formal bargaining sessions.

Their goal: negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement before the current deal expires in March.

Perhaps the rhetoric will cool down this week as well although that wasn't part of the announcement.

Here's the entire unabridged statement, which was e-mailed by the union public relations department:


"NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith and Commissioner Roger Goodell met today in New York to discuss a range of issues related to a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. As part of a process to intensify negotiations, they agreed to hold a formal bargaining session with both negotiating teams on Saturday in the Dallas area. They also agreed to a series of meetings over the next few weeks, both formal bargaining sessions and smaller group meetings, in an effort to reach a new agreement by early March."

 

[jmt57]

Five things NFLPA can do to address franchise tag issues - Sporting News - 2/26/2010 - Mike Florio

Two years ago, a certain Internet hack wrote this sentence: "If the NFL Players Association will be pressured as part of the next round of Collective Bargaining Agreement talks to take a smaller percentage of the football revenue than the 60-percent chunk that the union now receives, there's something important the players should request in return. They should ask the league to get rid of the franchise tag."

Today, it's now clear the players are being squeezed to take a smaller piece of the pie, in the name of the ongoing growth of it. So I'll reiterate what the unnamed Internet hack said on Feb. 25, 2008 - the players should insist on the disappearance of the franchise tag.

1. Get rid of the transition tag
2. Limit franchise tag to one year
3. Base the tender on salary in the current year
4. Hold firm on the current categories
5. On defense, develop a 'defensive quarterback' category

 

[jmt57]

Special Master Rejects NFLPA's Complaint About NFL TV Payments - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | 2/2/2011

The NFL said that a ruling from Special Master Stephen Burbank yesterday entitles the league to "rights-fee payments from television networks during a work stoppage," according to Mark Maske of the Washington Post. The payments would "provide the NFL's franchise owners with about $4 billion in revenue next season even if they lock out players" after the CBA expires on March 4. NFL officials have said that "any payments from the networks to the league during a work stoppage eventually would have to be repaid."

The NFLPA had filed a complaint with the special master "challenging the structure of the league's TV contracts." The union argued that the money "provides the owners with what amounts to a lockout fund because payments must be made during a work stoppage." But the NFL in a statement last night said, "The Special Master squarely rejected the union's demand that the NFL be denied access to payments that the league's television partners are obligated to make for the 2011 season."

A source indicated that the NFLPA was awarded $6.9M in "damages as a result of the timing of certain rights-fee payments by the TV networks to the league." The source said that the union "had contended in its case that the league gave away certain 2009 and 2010 rights to the networks with no consideration in return, and the union had sought approximately $60 million in damages in addition to attempting to prevent the NFL from accessing about $4 billion in TV rights fees in 2011."

Maske noted the NFLPA last night "claimed a measure of victory in Burbank's ruling but acknowledged its plan to appeal." The union has filed a "separate case with Burbank that alleges collusion by owners." That case has yet to be resolved (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 2/1). NFLPA Assistant Exec Dir for External Affairs George Atallah in a statement said Burbank found that the NFL violated the '93 antitrust agreement establishing free agency "with respect to the NFL's negotiation of lockout insurance in its contracts with ESPN and NBC." Atallah noted that the union will "file an expedited appeal in federal court in Minnesota" (NYTIMES.com, 2/1).


Yahoo Sports' Doug Farrar wrote "that the owners now have the money needed to dig in and wait the players out not only gives one side unfair advantage, it also sets up several needless complications -- a good sign that what we have here is a bad ruling." The NFL's TV partners are "now looking at paying millions of dollars for something that they cannot televise." The owners are "going to hoard money in payment for services that cannot be rendered and a product that doesn't exist ... unless the plan from here on out is to use replacement players again." Farrar noted the players now can "go full bore with the statement they've been making all along -- that in a time of unprecedented financial well-being for the league, all they've wanted to do was to keep the game going under the same parameters that have existed" since '06. That is "not what the owners want, but as the owners are basically in the position of taking free money ... the hearts and minds of the public will most likely swing to the players" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 2/1).

 

[jmt57]

Uncertainty Around NFL CBA Causing Confusion About Franchise Tags - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | 2/2/2011 | Liz Mullen

With the first date on which NFL clubs can place a franchise tag on a player now just eight days away, the question of whether teams can tag players for next season if no new CBA is in place could fuel a new fire in the ongoing labor battle between the league and players union. Teams typically can place a franchise tag on a player starting 22 days before the start of the league year. Drawing back from March 4, which would be the start of the new league year and when free agency typically begins, that would make Feb. 10 the date on which teams could start applying tags.

March 4 of this year, however, would also be the first day for the league and players without a CBA if the two sides cannot reach agreement on a new deal. The NFLPA has taken the position, sources said, that the NFL cannot tag players because the tag is a term and condition for employment under the next CBA, which has not yet been negotiated.

The union, the sources said, has not made a secret of its position, as the free agent tag period is not noted, unlike every other major deadline involving NFL player contracts, on the NFL certified adviser calendars it has distributed to all agents. “I expect the franchise tag to continue to operate as it has in prior seasons and clubs to be permitted to exercise their rights under the tag,” said NFL Exec VP & General Counsel Jeff Pash.

It is not clear how the tag dispute may be resolved. “I think the clubs are aware of the PA’s position,” said one prominent agent, who did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on union matters. “I believe that will be an issue involving the legal process or collective bargaining.”

 

[jmt57]

Union disputes league claim that franchise tags are available | ProFootballTalk | 2/3/2011 | Michael David Smith

The NFL has told teams that the franchise tag will be available to them this offseason. But the NFL Players’ Association disagrees.

In a memo to all NFLPA certified agents, the union said that the league cannot restrict players’ movement by using the franchise tag.

“We have received reports that the NFL is advising clubs that they can place a franchise tag on players whose contracts will expire at the end of the 2010 league year,” the Union says in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by PFT.

“The current CBA provides that ‘each club shall be permitted to designate one of its players who would otherwise be an Unrestricted Free Agent [or Restricted Free Agent] as a Franchise Player each season during the term of this Agreement.’ The 2011 season is not a ‘season during the term of this Agreement’ so the NFL has no valid basis for claiming the right to franchise players in 2011.

“If you have had any discussions with clubs about their intent to use the Franchise designation for the 2011 season please contact the NFLPA to discuss this matter. Meanwhile, we will make sure that the rights of any players improperly designated will be protected.”

So we can add the franchise tag to the list of items that the league and the union disagree about, with a month to go before a likely lockout.

 

[jmt57]

Sources: NFL Would Not Use Media Fees Until Lockout Season Two - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | 2/3/2011 | Daniel Kaplan

The NFL is not budgeted to use the $4B in media fees that are at the center of a bitter dispute with the players union until a potential second year of a lockout, according to two well-placed sources. The NFLPA said it would appeal to a federal district court judge a special master’s decision this week allowing the NFL to use those funds in the event of a lockout, which could begin as early as March 4. However, the NFL is not planning to tap the media money until March '12, if necessary, the sources said, apparently making the outcome of the appeal largely moot in the context of the heated labor debate. Most observers expect the league and union to reach a new labor deal long before spring '12.

The NFL declined to comment for this story, but last month the league’s Exec VP/Business Operations Eric Grubman told reporters, “There are a lot of risks we account for, and to prepare for them, we line up sources of capital. (The TV money) is only one. We have other sources of capital that we lined up to account for any risk that we can think of that might face the league.”

The union has aggressively challenged the league’s control of the money, charging that the NFL negotiated below-market rates for the broadcast deals in exchange for a promise that the money would flow whether games are played or not. The league is required to maximize revenue under the CBA. Underlying the charge, of course, is that the money is critical for keeping the owners afloat during a labor disturbance.

“Now for the good news: The NFL, until the appeal in Minnesota, has $4 billion to not play football next year. VICTORY!,” union spokesman George Atallah tweeted after the decision on Tuesday. Atallah did not reply for comment for this story. The district court the NFLPA said it would appeal to is in Minnesota.

The NFL already is building a $900M lockout fund, seeded with national revenue the league has held back from teams along with savings from teams not paying players non-health care benefits last year. Under terms of the CBA, the teams’ obligation to pay these benefits, such as life insurance or pension-plan payments, ceased with the expiration of the salary cap last March.

The union spent heavily to lobby its case with the special master, Stephen Burbank, who under the CBA hears disputes between the sides. The NFL said the union spent twice the more than $6M Burbank awarded the union in his ruling, a penalty tied to what he judged as the mistiming of whether some TV money should have been counted in '10 or '11.

The union used two law firms to argue its case, a source said: Dewey & LeBoeuf, its longtime legal adviser, as well as Latham & Watkins, a firm that has previously employed current NFLPA Exec Dir DeMaurice Smith.

The NFL has emphasized that the TV money at issue has to be repaid, with interest, after games resume, presuming some of the '11 season is lost. Grubman, speaking last month, said to think of the money as debt. “This is cash money lost we can’t spend,” he said. “We have other sources we can tap, not just the money that is the subject of the (special master).”

 

[jmt57]

NFL's Jeff Pash Raises Possibility Of Extending CBA Deadline - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | 2/3/2011

NFL Exec VP & General Counsel Jeff Pash raised the possibility yesterday that the NFL may not lock players out on March 4, when the CBA is set to expire. While it has been widely expected that the NFL will lock players out after midnight, Pash said during an update on CBA negotiations, "If you are making progress (toward a new deal) you can stop the clock." Pash spent much of the press conference calling for more negotiations and saying that both players and the league would be hurt economically the longer there is no agreement. Bob Batterman, the league's outside labor attorney, talked to reporters after the press conference and explained that it was possible to extend the deadline if the two sides were close.

 

[sg14]

This is a good as any place to vent,,

What ever the players do to avoid the 18 game season is fine by me.

The NFL is just another Wall Street entity that does not give a rat's azz about the players or any other group just so long as they make more money.

As if there isn't enough money to go around already,,

And if Goodell screws this up, then we get him out of our game.

 

[jmt57]

Just a few days after seemingly good news that the two sides agreed to sit down and talk, the meetings are suddenly canceled.

NFL.com news: NFL, union meet in D.C., cancel Thursday's bargaining session | Jason La Canfora | 2/9/11

A second day of negotiations in Washington between the NFL and NFL Players Association has been canceled, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

The sides, working to reach agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement by March 3, when the current CBA expires, canceled Thursday's planned talks after an extended session Wednesday.

The sides met Saturday in Dallas, and future talks are planned. Such setbacks are not out of the norm, but hopes of building momentum through multiple sessions this week will not be met.

Neither side would comment on what was discussed or how fruitful the talks were in Wednesday's session.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Sunday morning that this past weekend's bargaining session with the players' union in Dallas was "beneficial."

In an interview with "Fox News Sunday" that aired the morning of Super Bowl XLV, Goodell called drug testing a key issue in labor talks.

Goodell said "a number of" individual players and owners participated in a two-hour meeting Saturday, the first formal bargaining session since Nov. 22.

"It's always a positive when both parties are talking," Goodell said.

Outlining major sticking points, Goodell talked about revenue division, rookie salaries and benefits for retired players.

"We want to continue on with the integrity of the game, which is my No. 1 issue," Goodell said, adding the league wants to make sure "we have the best drug program in sports."

The NFL and NFL Players Association issued a joint statement following Saturday's session at a Dallas hotel.

"The NFL and NFL Players Association met for two hours today in a continuing effort to narrow the differences and reach a fair agreement that will benefit the players, teams and fans," the statement read. "We plan to increase the number, length and intensity of bargaining sessions so that we can reach agreement before the (March 3) expiration of the current CBA."

 

[jmt57]

Sources: NFL's owners balk at 50-50 split - ESPN - Chris Mortensen - 2/10/2011

NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith briefed club player representatives in a conference call Wednesday night, detailing his version of the abbreviated session that ended far earlier than the seven hours that were scheduled between the two sides in an effort to reach a new collective bargaining agreement before it expires at midnight March 4.

Consequently, a five-hour second negotiating session scheduled for Thursday was canceled, and no further meetings have been proposed. Also, the NFL notified teams and owners Thursday that a scheduled owners meeting in Philadelphia next Tuesday has been canceled.

Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."

At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.

Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before it splits "total revenue" with players.

Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion in credits.

To simplify talks, a player source said the union told the owners' negotiating team that it will forgo its request to examine the league's financial books by simply taking the flat 50 percent cut of "all revenue," which would eliminate $1 billion to $2 billion credits off the top and erase the definition of "total revenue."

A union source said that if the NFLPA accepted the owners' current proposal, it would receive a little more than 40 percent of all revenue.

Smith said in an interview with ESPN last week that a 40 percent to 42 percent share of all revenue would represent the smallest percentage of a players' share by any professional sports union.

In addition to the flat 50 percent share of all revenue, players are willing to grant additional credits to any franchise that reinvests in stadium improvement, a mechanism to motivate clubs to grow revenues, a player source said.

The union believes by taking a flat 50 percent share, it would eliminate the need to audit every expense clubs invest in order to offset credits built into the current CBA and the model proposed by owners going forward.

NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah would not elaborate Thursday, except to say, "This didn't just start yesterday."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league will not confirm, deny or comment on any specifics relating to negotiations.

 

[jmt57]

Report: CBA talks broke down after union proposed 50-50 split | ProFootballTalk | Mike Florio | 2/10/2011

Apparently, the meeting — which lasted far less than the expected nine hours — got off to a bad start when the NFL’s negotiating team supposedly interpreted the players’ proposal of 49-to-51 cents on the dollar as being the cut of “total football revenue,” not “all revenue.”

Currently, the players get 59.6 cents of each dollar of ‘total football revenue,” a number that is roughly $1 billion less than all revenue generated by the sport.

The league’s misinterpretation of the proposal is a bit surprising, since a 50-50 split of total football revenue would have reflected the much-debated 18 percent reduction that the owners’ reportedly have asked the players to take. Then again, the union’s decision to propose essentially a 50-50 sharing of all revenue is equally surprising, given that the players currently get roughly that amount under the current deal.

According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the players received 51.87 percent of all revenue in 2002. In 2003, it dropped to 50.23 percent. In 2004, it was 52.18 percent. In 2005, 50.52 percent. In 2006, it was 52.74 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2007, it was 51.84 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2009, it was 50.06 percent.

Thus, an offer to take 50 cents of every dollar represents no concession at all.

That said, we think it was unreasonable for the league to storm out. We assume the proposal reflected an opening offer from the union under an “all revenue” model, and opening offers implicitly contain room to move. With the league refusing to open the books to justify the desire to cut the players’ share, it’s not unreasonable for the players to say, “Look, let’s quit bickering about the league taking money off the top and let’s just work out a formula based on every dollar that comes in. Our first move is to ask for roughly what we currently get. Feel free to counter.”

If the NFL truly wanted to do a deal, the NFL would have countered.

It makes us think that the NFL actually wants to lock out the players, or to push the negotiations to the brink of a lockout in the hopes of getting the players to drop their proposal without a counter.

That said, if the union made its proposal as a take-it-or-leave it gesture, then it makes us think that the NFLPA wants to force a lockout in the hopes of getting a better deal via the application of litigation and/or political pressure, a strategy that to date has failed miserably.