Could the Union Decertification backfire on players?

[DW Toys]

Here is why I ask this.

1) There are now 3 different Leagues that players can go to besides the NFL. There is the UFL, CFL, and AFL.

2) The players are going to have a much hard time proving that the owners are "limiting trade" because the NFL is no longer the only game in town.

3) The players will also have a harder time proving collusion since there are 3 other leagues that players can go to.

The owners could use those 3 leagues to say "Hey, we're paying our guys more than fairly in comparison to others in their field" . The owners could use that to their advantage to push down salaries.

Also, by decertifying, doesn't that basically mean the players would have to start from scratch? And, in return, the owners could pull some things off the bargaining table that the players had already fought for?

Excellent post. I was thinking about proof with other leagues available as well. How can the NFLPA lawyers discount that fact? It makes no sense.
DW Toys

 

[TrueBeliever]

Excellent post. I was thinking about proof with other leagues available as well. How can the NFLPA lawyers discount that fact? It makes no sense.
DW Toys

I know there is a 99.9% likelihood it will never happen, but I just thought, wouldn't it be funny if the lockout went into the fall and a bunch of NFL players decided to go play in the UFL, and suddenly that league's popularity would skyrocket... and then the CBA would get done and suddenly the UFL went back to XFL-caliber players. It'd be like an Adam Sandler movie come to life.

 

[Wolfpack]

The league violates anti-trust laws in a wide variety of ways. For example, the NFL Draft itself is a HUGE violation of anti-trust laws. However, (almost) all those laws get thrown out the window when you have a collectively bargained agreement in place.

No union = no CBA = no anti-trust law exemptions.

The USSC recently ruled the NFL is 32 separate entities in the "American Needle" ruling of about a year ago. That ruling involved a small amunt of money, but has potentially an absolutely devastating consequence for ownership here. If non-unionized players ever filed suit against the concept of a draft, they would win in a heartbeat.

I am not saying they will actually take that strategy, but that is the sort of thing within the realm of possibility if we see decertification.

 

[IllegalContact]

One question that though of just now is.....lets say the union does decertify which makes it impossible to have a CBA, and under contract players show up at the stadiums ready to go.........the teams are contractually bound to let them come to work or the team would be in breach of contract with that player. Could the player then file suit to have the contract terminated? There is a legal argument say for Tom Brady to force the team to let him wok based on the contract, or the contract is null and void......all h players could o that.......the league would have start from scratch,no?

 

[DaBruinz]

The more I read, the more I become certain that the union decertifying is exactly what the owners want.

With no union, the owners can run the league how they choose. As they did from 1989 through 1993. Was their litigation? Yep. And the owners gave up things they knew they'd have to give up anyways. They bought themselves an extra 5 years while the litigation works its way through the court system.

The players are already getting over 50% of the gross revenue. It's about 52.89% based on their numbers. They have the free agency they agreed to back in 1993. They have the best healthcare in the world. They have pensions and 401(K)s. Yet, they want "better healthcare", "better pensions", "pro-rated raised for an 18 game schedule", and a say in how the owners use the extra Billion that the owners want to take off the top.

I honestly believe that any litigation will end up with the players on the short end of the stick. Especially considering that the one set of financials that is public record shows that the Packers had a profit margin of less than 10%.

 

[Metaphors]

I honestly believe that any litigation will end up with the players on the short end of the stick. Especially considering that the one set of financials that is public record shows that the Packers had a profit margin of less than 10%.

Agreed. All an anti-trust suit can do is force the 32 owners to behave as 32 competing businesses. That would eliminate the draft, salary cap/floor, league TV/radio/marketing contracts and revenue sharing. Check the impact of each of these:

Draft - Just injects hundreds of additional free agents every year. The top guys in a draft class will get significantly less (except the occasional bidding war on a franchise QB) and the rest will probably get comparable deals.

Salary Cap/Floor - Just lived through this one. Modest increase in salaries but teams didn't go nuts. Since teams would know that the next CBA would include a cap, similar restraint would remain. Anyway, every business has a budget and these owners certainly won't spend more than they make.

League Contracts - This is the nuclear option. If each team has to make their own deals, the league will radically change. Contraction will claim a handful of teams. A bunch of teams that remain will have significantly less money to spend on salaries. A few teams will have boatloads of cash, but they will have limited roster spots to spend it on. Everyone suffers but the players get slammed. Jobs lost, reduced overall spending on salaries, long-term instability...the players don't want to go here.

Revenue Sharing - This would be the only thing that could mute the above devastation, but it wouldn't matter anyway. If owners have to negotiate their own TV deals, they aren't going to share.

The players could use the threat of any of these things as leverage in the next CBA, but none of these points are really in dispute. None of these changes result in what the players really want...no loss in current levels of salary spending.

The players floated a proposal for 50% of total revenue ($9.3B). That would result in a $145M cap which is approximately the deal owners opted out of. The owners offered up 42% of total revenue would would result in a $122M cap...which I believe is lower than the 2009 cap. The players need to find the right balance between higher salary percentage (concession to players) and 18 game schedule (concession to owners). Take it to court and the players end up with years of lower salary (owners' rules) and then no addition motivation for the owners to spend more in a new litigation-rules or CBA league.

 

[Wolfpack]

You clearly don't realize what the real situation was. The situation was that the networks would pay the league as usual, whether the games were there or not. And any games that were missed, the league would have to repay those funds.

When there is a lockout, the owners will still get money from their other ventures. The Players, however, don't get squat.

If you're going to mention "other ventures" for ownership then it's silly not to admit many players have "other ventures" too. You think Peyton Manning does all those commercials for free?

Ownership and the players are very much in the same boat: Some will be comfortable and some have other ventures going for them. And others won't and don't.

 

[Wolfpack]

League Contracts - This is the nuclear option. If each team has to make their own deals, the league will radically change. Contraction will claim a handful of teams. A bunch of teams that remain will have significantly less money to spend on salaries. A few teams will have boatloads of cash, but they will have limited roster spots to spend it on. Everyone suffers but the players get slammed. Jobs lost, reduced overall spending on salaries, long-term instability...the players don't want to go here.

No NFL team is going to contract. You have 3 sad sack sports in baseball, hockey and basketball, with all their myriads of problems through the years, and we haven't seen contraction in any of them in what? 40 years?

 

[Metaphors]

No NFL team is going to contract. You have 3 sad sack sports in baseball, hockey and basketball, with all their myriads of problems through the years, and we haven't seen contraction in any of them in what? 40 years?

They all have league TV contracts. If the courts rule that NFL teams can't negotiate deals as a single entity, that goes away. Can Jacksonville (47th TV market), Buffalo (51st) or New Orleans (53rd) survive in such an environment? In fact, 13 NFL teams operate outside of top 20 TV markets. What kind of TV deals will they be able to negotiate?

Some teams won't be able to survive in that environment. Add up the individual TV deals from the remaining teams and it won't be close to the billions the league gets today. The NFL generates amazing revenue by being able to negotiate as a single entity. Losing that would be the unintended side-effect of an antitrust ruling...which is why it is a lousy weapon to use in CBA negotiations.

 

[DaBruinz]

Wolfpack -
St. Louis Cardinals, Los Angeles Rams, Cleveland Browns, Houston Oilers.

They all have something in common.

 

[Triumph]

I dont think that the Owners want the NFLPA to decertify at all.

Why? So they can go before Judge Doty again? Not to mention the can of worms it opens up regarding the draft, salary cap, et al.

 

[Ring 6]

One question that though of just now is.....lets say the union does decertify which makes it impossible to have a CBA, and under contract players show up at the stadiums ready to go.........the teams are contractually bound to let them come to work or the team would be in breach of contract with that player. Could the player then file suit to have the contract terminated? There is a legal argument say for Tom Brady to force the team to let him wok based on the contract, or the contract is null and void......all h players could o that.......the league would have start from scratch,no?

Thats an excellent question.
Since the contract was signed under a CBA does that impact its future when the union decertifies?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The notion that the league wants decertification is simply a fantasy. If the league were interested in non-cartell bargaining with players as free agents and no draft, it could have simply let the prior CBAs expire. It doesn't want any of those things.

Indeed, if the players decertify, the league could voluntarily cease antitrust violations, which they won't -- thus also exposing themselves to treble damages (which they also most definitely don't want).

Love the players, hate the players, whatever -- the reality is that the threat of decertification is the one piece of leverage the players have and most likely the reason the parties are back at the bargaining table. The owners have been hell bent on a lock out for 3 years. This threw a monkey wrench in their plans, which is really our only hope for football next year. I understand that union v. management issues engender strong emotions. Thus, one might be all in favor of management crushing labor, or vice versa. If what you want is football, you want the parties to be as close to 50/50 in leverage as possible. It's not there, but the threat of decertification puts it in the ballpark where further discussion is worthwhile.

With respect to whether player contracts continue in force, I would assume yes -- they are between the players and the clubs. Whether the contracts (or some of them) have an opt out in the event of decertification is the question.

 

[townes]

You clearly don't realize what the real situation was. The situation was that the networks would pay the league as usual, whether the games were there or not. And any games that were missed, the league would have to repay those funds.

When there is a lockout, the owners will still get money from their other ventures. The Players, however, don't get squat.

The players don't realize how good they have it. Particularly when it comes to healthcare. And they are getting the sticker shock on their COBRA payments now. And there are a lot who just never realized what that benefit cost. I wouldn't be surprised to find out if they are having to pay $2500 to $3000 (or more) a month for their insurance.

I wouldn't be surprised if, going forward, the players will be required to pay for their health insurance.

Actually I know exactly what the situation was, and I agree with Doty that the deal was unfair. As for the players not realizing "how good they have it" i'm sure they do and that's why they want the current deal to continue, because it is a good one. And since the owners refuse to open their books we don't get to see how good they have it, which is why they keep them shut.


As for "health' I think the Krafts will be walking around just fine in their 50's 60's and 70's, whereas those players lucky enough to still be alive will almost certainly be suffering the effects of their careers. If the owners are so scummy they refuse to cover healthcare the players should never sign any deal with them.

 

[Triumph]

The notion that the league wants decertification is simply a fantasy. If the league were interested in non-cartell bargaining with players as free agents and no draft, it could have simply let the prior CBAs expire. It doesn't want any of those things.

Indeed, if the players decertify, the league could voluntarily cease antitrust violations, which they won't -- thus also exposing themselves to treble damages (which they also most definitely don't want).

Love the players, hate the players, whatever -- the reality is that the threat of decertification is the one piece of leverage the players have and most likely the reason the parties are back at the bargaining table. The owners have been hell bent on a lock out for 3 years. This threw a monkey wrench in their plans, which is really our only hope for football next year. I understand that union v. management issues engender strong emotions. Thus, one might be all in favor of management crushing labor, or vice versa. If what you want is football, you want the parties to be as close to 50/50 in leverage as possible. It's not there, but the threat of decertification puts it in the ballpark where further discussion is worthwhile.

With respect to whether player contracts continue in force, I would assume yes -- they are between the players and the clubs. Whether the contracts (or some of them) have an opt out in the event of decertification is the question.

Dead on.

The loss of tv revenue during a lock out has also brought the owners back to the table.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Dead on.

The loss of tv revenue during a lock out has also brought the owners back to the table.

I think this is the biggest single reason they're in serious talks now. It apparent the owners didnt get the most money out of the networks in exchange for the provision they could get a years TV money in the event they dont play that year, the union could easily argue the owners didnt bargain in good faith and win that argument.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I think this is the biggest single reason they're in serious talks now. It apparent the owners didnt get the most money out of the networks in exchange for the provision they could get a years TV money in the event they dont play that year, the union could easily argue the owners didnt bargain in good faith and win that argument.

It's important, though, to understand what Doty ruled and what he didn't. He DID NOT hold that the networks don't have to pay the money. They do. Doty didn't invalidate the contracts. The networks are still on the hook to pay the $4 billion.

The question now is what to do with the money. For now, it's going into escrow, which means the owners can't get their hands on it. But eventually, the owners are going to get the money -- it's just a question of when. They also will likely have to pay damages to the players. In other words, a trial will have to be held on how much the owners undercharged in 2009 and 2010 in order to build the 2011 war chest. So, the players will get some of the money, but not anything like all of it or even half. The court is also going to have a hearing on injunctive relief in the near future -- what this means is that the court will probably decide how much of the money has to stay in escrow. For example, if the court decides that the maximum damages the players would be entitled to (just as an example) is $1 billion, it likely would put that money in escrow to fight over later, but release the rest to the owners.

In other words, while the ruling was a blow to the owners in terms of their ability to get the money NOW, they will get it or much of it eventually. Interest rates are pretty low right now -- if Jerry Jones has to borrow in the short term to pay the mortgage on his new palace, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

In short, while the ruling was significant in terms of getting the owners back to the table, the hammer is decertification. No league or maybe business entity has spent so much money, effort, and time as the NFL in avoiding additional serious antitrust litigation.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's important, though, to understand what Doty ruled and what he didn't. He DID NOT hold that the networks don't have to pay the money. They do. Doty didn't invalidate the contracts. The networks are still on the hook to pay the $4 billion.

The question now is what to do with the money. For now, it's going into escrow, which means the owners can't get their hands on it. But eventually, the owners are going to get the money -- it's just a question of when. They also will likely have to pay damages to the players. In other words, a trial will have to be held on how much the owners undercharged in 2009 and 2010 in order to build the 2011 war chest. So, the players will get some of the money, but not anything like all of it or even half. The court is also going to have a hearing on injunctive relief in the near future -- what this means is that the court will probably decide how much of the money has to stay in escrow. For example, if the court decides that the maximum damages the players would be entitled to (just as an example) is $1 billion, it likely would put that money in escrow to fight over later, but release the rest to the owners.

In other words, while the ruling was a blow to the owners in terms of their ability to get the money NOW, they will get it or much of it eventually. Interest rates are pretty low right now -- if Jerry Jones has to borrow in the short term to pay the mortgage on his new palace, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

In short, while the ruling was significant in terms of getting the owners back to the table, the hammer is decertification. No league or maybe business entity has spent so much money, effort, and time as the NFL in avoiding additional serious antitrust litigation.

Burbank awarded damages in his ruling relating to the Direct TV deal. Those damages amounted to $6M, and Kraft stated that the union had already spent more than twice that in filing lawsuits against the owners over the last couple of months...

The risks to the union are that decertification won't stand up in which case they will then be up the creek without a paddle. Or having granted them an injunction on the TV revenue even Doty will be unwilling to grant them another on the lockout issue. There is also the risk that if he does and we play on under owners rules they will not prevail on a sufficient # of issues over time to come out anymore than even once they recertify to effect a new CBA that offers their members protections like arbitration again, which they would lose in the process. There is also the risk that they get everything they want and a few things they don't because revenues and franchise values plummet as a result of court rulings and the league goes under due to inability to function as a collective.

They are playing that card because it is the only one in their hand. As was the threat of an uncapped future, and we all saw how devastating that ultimately was for the other side...not.

Supposedly today it is all coming down to financial transparency. Thing is the Total Revenue they now share is always audited to verify the split. What they are looking for is insider information they could spin to discredit the league as far as what they (or some of the 32 member owners) are already spending the expense offset on as a means to argue against their need for any additional offset.

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually I know exactly what the situation was, and I agree with Doty that the deal was unfair. As for the players not realizing "how good they have it" i'm sure they do and that's why they want the current deal to continue, because it is a good one. And since the owners refuse to open their books we don't get to see how good they have it, which is why they keep them shut.

Clearly you don't know what the situation was because you refuse to acknowledge that, whether the league redid the contracts or not, they were getting their money. Yes. That's right. The league was getting their money under the old contracts. Ones that said that they wouldn't have to pay back the networks for games missed.

The owners (save the Packers) refuse to open their books because the players are employees, not partners. They have no stake in the longevity of any of the teams.

It's amazing how the league is supposed to just cowtow to the players whims, yet you never see the players doing jack for the league. If they were "partners", the the players would be doing more than just saying "Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimmee." all the time


A

s for "health' I think the Krafts will be walking around just fine in their 50's 60's and 70's, whereas those players lucky enough to still be alive will almost certainly be suffering the effects of their careers. If the owners are so scummy they refuse to cover healthcare the players should never sign any deal with them.

Yes, the owners shell out millions to make sure the players get top of the line healthcare, yet they are the scummy ones.

The owners have gone out of their way to ensure that the players have access to some of the best financial planners and such. Yet, we know very few actually take advantage of it.

One last thing, could you please point to the study that says most, if not all pro-football players suffer in their post-football careers..

OH, and also tell me who the guy was holding the gun to their head that "made them" play professional football.

 

[lamafist]

Clearly you don't know what the situation was because you refuse to acknowledge that, whether the league redid the contracts or not, they were getting their money. Yes. That's right. The league was getting their money under the old contracts. Ones that said that they wouldn't have to pay back the networks for games missed.

The old TV contracts that expired in 2005 were negotiated prior to the present CBA, and thus have no bearing on the present situation. The only thing that matters is that it was a violation of the present CBA when the league did not seek to maximize total revenues by insisting on provisions that kept payments coming in the event of a labor stoppage. The owners can appeal the ruling, but it's very unlikely to be overturned.

The owners (save the Packers) refuse to open their books because the players are employees, not partners. They have no stake in the longevity of any of the teams.

At this point, it makes very little sense for the owners to refuse to open their books, because as soon as they institute a lockout and the litigation starts, the players' counsel will be able to request the financial records in the discovery process.

It's amazing how the league is supposed to just cowtow to the players whims, yet you never see the players doing jack for the league. If they were "partners", the the players would be doing more than just saying "Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimmee." all the time.

The players don't do jack for the league? How about serving as the NFL's sole draw... or do you think fans tune in to see Jerry Jones' and Al Davis' track suits? Without these players, the NFL is about as viable as the Arena Football League. And no, the players aren't "partners" - they cease benefiting from the league's growth in profitability at the end of careers that last, on average, 3 1/2 seasons. If the owners want the players to sacrifice on the behalf of the league's future valuation, they could give every player a non-trivial stake in the league. Of course, they have no interest in doing that, because it's ultimately much cheaper to pay them for their present services.

Yes, the owners shell out millions to make sure the players get top of the line healthcare, yet they are the scummy ones.

You act like the owners pay for their players health care out of the goodness of their hearts. Ha! The current players get top of the line healthcare because a) they collectively bargain for it, and b) because the owners want to maximize their return on investment in the players.

Meanwhile, the health care for retired veterans has been absolutely pitiful until the last few years, and the only reason things are changing is the mounting bad press the league is getting.

The owners have gone out of their way to ensure that the players have access to some of the best financial planners and such. Yet, we know very few actually take advantage of it.

First of all, this is a co-effort by the NFL and the NFLPA - and it's not like it's come at any great cost. Nobody needed to twist any arms to get investors to come in and get a crack at representing the players.

Oh, and please, do clue me in on how we know that very few actually take advantage of it.

One last thing, could you please point to the study that says most, if not all pro-football players suffer in their post-football careers..

You can find citations for a number of them dealing with brain injury and osteoarthritis here. Those are just the ones funded by UNC. Many, many more are just a google search away.

OH, and also tell me who the guy was holding the gun to their head that "made them" play professional football.

First, tell me about the gun being held to the head of the owners forcing them to hold onto their teams. I mean, for the vast majority of players, their athletic gifts were their most promising marketable skills by a good sight -- but the owners, meanwhile, could all sell their teams right now for many times what they were worth when they bought or inherited them, and reinvest their windfall in whatever other field they choose. Who's making *them* choose to stick around to dig their heels in and risk the 2011 season?

The slightest rumor that an NFL franchise is on the market sparks tons of interest - the owners could be replaced by other billionaires or moneyed interests in a matter of weeks. The players? Try replacing them with scabs from the UFL, and the TV networks would have to play "yakkety sax" over the broadcasts just to make them watchable.