NFLPA vs NFL in a nutshell

[E Belichick Unum]

The 2010 rules were not the status quo but a compromise that had poison pills for both sides but ultimately favored ownership much more than the status quo did, and continuing to talk under those rules is clearly the best solution if negotiating a good deal for both sides was the goal, but it wasn't, crushing the players and dictating the deal was the goal and negotiating was never the route the owners favored.


Ownership to this point, and all those who side with them have NEVER made any real case for why a new deal was needed, they simply say that owners should always get what they want, which is hardly a sound argument in any case. record attendance, merchandise sales, TV deals, and new streams of revenues all point to record profits for ownership, and until someone can demonstrate that they actually needed a new deal I'm not going to buy the argument that any of this was necessary.



What you are saying is that the owners had to lock out the players, so back it up with some facts.

I know I will regret this, but if the owners are indeed OWNERS, shouldn't they be allowed to dictate what they pay their employees? And I am pretty sure what they were being paid was fair, even in the world of professional sports.

Owners are owners to make money. If the business were not profitable, they probably wouldn't own it. That is what business is built upon and as far as I can tell, unions have ruined more good businesses than they have helped good businesses. I am guessing that you are a union guy, probably a steward or a state worker. You probably work year round, for a decent paycheck. You probably accumulate sick time, work unusual hours to assure yourself of overtime every week and get your benefits paid by the city/state/county. You have been convinced that your employer, every employer, is your enemy and that you should screw him/her before he/she screws you. Pretty sh!tty way to live, but you seem to enjoy it.

They are owners because they risked their own money and bought the team. Ask the Sullivans how easily it is to lose your team, ask Victor Kiam. This isn't about owners out to screw the little guy, this is about owners looking a few years in advance and seeing their profits disappear, while seeing the players eating up more and more revenue. It was a stupid deal to begin with, it remains a stupid deal today and if it weren't for DeMaurice Smith we would have a CBA done and signed off today with everybody happy and friendly.

This is a perfwect example of what happens when lawyers get involved in anything.

 

[lamafist]

I know I will regret this, but if the owners are indeed OWNERS, shouldn't they be allowed to dictate what they pay their employees? And I am pretty sure what they were being paid was fair, even in the world of professional sports.

Owners are owners to make money. If the business were not profitable, they probably wouldn't own it. That is what business is built upon and as far as I can tell, unions have ruined more good businesses than they have helped good businesses. I am guessing that you are a union guy, probably a steward or a state worker. You probably work year round, for a decent paycheck. You probably accumulate sick time, work unusual hours to assure yourself of overtime every week and get your benefits paid by the city/state/county. You have been convinced that your employer, every employer, is your enemy and that you should screw him/her before he/she screws you. Pretty sh!tty way to live, but you seem to enjoy it.

They are owners because they risked their own money and bought the team. Ask the Sullivans how easily it is to lose your team, ask Victor Kiam. This isn't about owners out to screw the little guy, this is about owners looking a few years in advance and seeing their profits disappear, while seeing the players eating up more and more revenue. It was a stupid deal to begin with, it remains a stupid deal today and if it weren't for DeMaurice Smith we would have a CBA done and signed off today with everybody happy and friendly.

This is a perfwect example of what happens when lawyers get involved in anything.

If the owners wanted to be allowed to dictate what they pay their employees, they could start doing so tomorrow -- as long as they don't collude with one another to keep wages down, as that's against the law, absent a collectively bargained agreement with their workforce.

That would mean no salary floor, no salary cap, and no more class-action lawsuit.

The owners, for the most part, don't want this, the fans don't want this, and the NFLPA doesn't want this. A few owners (Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder, e.g.) might want this, and a few current star players might, but it's not in the longterm interest of the league's future for management and labor alike.

 

[patfanken]

If the owners wanted to stay out of court they could have agreed to play under 2010 rules while negotiating a deal

This makes absolutely no sense at all, T. Why would the owners want to work ANOTHER year in a construct that doesn't work. They've already workedthe last 3 years knowing that the 2006 deal didn't work, what's the point of doing it again.

they didn't want that and wanted instead to crush the players and dictate deal,

This is pure rhetoric, Townsie. You read the first offer there were PLENTY of concessions there for the players. Better health care, independent drug testing, no 18 game season, that's 3 right of the top of my head. They literally gave in on every issue but the MONEY.
"crushing the union" doesn't sound like that to me.

As far as the lawyers go they should all be fired, not just D. Smith and Kessler. Pash is a scumbag and has led the league down this path and I simply don't get why he skates while Smith and Kessler are rightly vilified.

On this we don't disagree, While I see Smith and Kessler as self aggrandizing and stupid, the NFL lawyers who planned their strategy of simply allowing this to get to court shouldn't be left off the hook. They are all pompous idiots....hence the Shakespeare reference

I have no problem with people looking at this and assigning blame where it belongs, unfortunately many are too poorly informed or too stupid to be able to do that, and when i say that I am specifically referring to the idiots who say they want the players crushed and no football so the owners can wipe the floor with them. I would like nothing better than for those demonizing the players to show up at camp next summer and repeat what they have said here to the faces of the players, but it will never happen because at that point they will be back to worshipping them.

I appreciate your emotionalism, but in the end this, again....is nothing but hysterical nonsense. No one is trying to crush the "union". Quit make metaphors as if the NFLPA is akin to the UAW or the AFL-CIO;
And as to fans who might have gone overboard in their disgust, you should have more patience, I too have harbored thoughts of a "player victory" that turns out to be a lot worse than what they've already been offered. How can you not when you have just another example of overpaid pampered athletes, trying to sound like they are oppressed coal miners'\. They just aren't living in the "real world"

 

[lamafist]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how any fifth or sixth year player who is hit with a RFA tender would want to play for the 2010 rules. I'm sure they are thinking to themselves, sure I could be a free agent and get a $30 million contract if I fight this but I want to play under the one year $2 million I am tendered at.

I guarantee you if the league said tomorrow that they are ending the lockout and implementing the 2010 rules, the players would have brief in front of Judge Nelson or Doty within 10 minutes seeking an injunction to prevent the league from imposing restricted free agent tenders and franchise tags. I guarantee the brief is already written and just waiting to be dated and signed.

The players put up with the restrictions of free agency in 2010 because the CBA was still in place and they had no choice. No way do fifth and sixth year players willingly go into another year of six years of unrestricted free agency without fighting it in court. The whole Brady et la lawsuit is to get rid of those restrictions all together.

I do not believe the players would have much legal grounds for that lawsuit, and I can almost guarantee that even if they did, they wouldn't consider it for even a second.

My layman's understanding of labor law is that businesses can continue to operate under the terms of the last extant contract to keep the plant running with protection from liability for damages. I'm sure my understanding is, at best, incomplete, so if anybody has more authoritative knowledge, I'd welcome correction.

As for whether the players would want to bring suit if they could, I think it's pretty clear they wouldn't. Why would they, when they could continue to drive a hard bargain in negotiations and collect their paychecks at the same time? Even the relatively small number of players who would be free agents otherwise would have to admit it's more in their interests to put off cashing in a year to keep getting paid under their current contract than divide the workforce, weaken the union's position, and invite a lockout in response to their suit.

 

[lamafist]

Actually it is the future slice versus the reduced profit margins. What has happened already has happened. The owners see the future of their team, the players see the future of their bank accounts, that is the major difference. One can dismiss the owners concerns, but that person cannot deny that the profits that were in place in 2006 are no longer in place in 2011.

What?

This is not even remotely true. The NFL's revenues have increased from $6.5 billion in 2005, pre CBA, to $9.3 billion in 2009. That figure will jump again significantly after the next TV contract is renogiated in 2012.

During this time, the players have continued to earn roughly %50 of all revenues -- right about the same level as they have since 1993.

What's changed for the NFL is that the league's shared revenues have flattened somewhat, while the amount of money brought in by non-shared local revenue streams has ballooned. Thus, while the NFL as a whole is enjoying record breaking profits, they're not distributed among the leagues franchises nearly as evenly.

That's why you have teams like the Jaguars and Lions struggling, while the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots are making money like never before.

 

[Shelterdog]

My layman's understanding of labor law is that businesses can continue to operate under the terms of the last extant contract to keep the plant running with protection from liability for damages. I'm sure my understanding is, at best, incomplete, so if anybody has more authoritative knowledge, I'd welcome correction.

Not true at all. The NFL faces multi billion dollar antitrust liability for anything it does without a CBA.

Even if there's no lockout, if there's no CBA/settlement the players can still sue and still get millions or billions in damages. Lets say they played 2011 under 2010 rules but didn't have a CBA/settlement: at a minumum every restricted free agent and player hit with a franchise tag would say like crazy and have a very, very good case that, without a CBA in place, restrictions on free agency are unreasonable/unlawful restraints of trade.

 

[lamafist]

Not when they initiate the problem by striking or by pre-emptively decertifiying which resulted in a lockout.

Decertification in no way caused the lockout.

If the players remained unionized, the NFL could lock them out with legal impunity.

If the players decertified, the NFL could lock them out, with their legal liability uncertain, to be decided by the court.

Meanwhile, the NFL's non-lockout options remain largely unchanged by decertification.

There is simply no line of reasoning in which decertification causing the lockout is even close to logical.

 

[lamafist]

Not true at all. The NFL faces multi billion dollar antitrust liability for anything it does without a CBA.

Even if there's no lockout, if there's no CBA/settlement the players can still sue and still get millions or billions in damages. Lets say they played 2011 under 2010 rules but didn't have a CBA/settlement: at a minumum every restricted free agent and player hit with a franchise tag would say like crazy and have a very, very good case that, without a CBA in place, restrictions on free agency are unreasonable/unlawful restraints of trade.

I do not believe that any former NFLPA member could sue the NFL for damages if the league simply devolves to the terms last agreement in place. As I said, this is my understanding of how labor law allows for businesses to keep their operations going when bargaining agreements expire without a new one to be put in its place.

I believe the players could sue to have the free agency restrictions overturned going forward, but not for treble damages for 2011, as the conditions of the previous CBA are essentially grandfathered in, absent a new CBA.

Again, if you have actual information to the contrary, I'd welcome correction.

All that said, even if that's not the case, the amount of damages they'd be liable to for denying restricted free agents opportunities for better contracts would be a fraction of a percentage of the potential damages of denying every single NFL player presently under contract from earning his wages.

 

[Rob0729]

I do not believe the players would have much legal grounds for that lawsuit, and I can almost guarantee that even if they did, they wouldn't consider it for even a second.

My layman's understanding of labor law is that businesses can continue to operate under the terms of the last extant contract to keep the plant running with protection from liability for damages. I'm sure my understanding is, at best, incomplete, so if anybody has more authoritative knowledge, I'd welcome correction.

As for whether the players would want to bring suit if they could, I think it's pretty clear they wouldn't. Why would they, when they could continue to drive a hard bargain in negotiations and collect their paychecks at the same time? Even the relatively small number of players who would be free agents otherwise would have to admit it's more in their interests to put off cashing in a year to keep getting paid under their current contract than divide the workforce, weaken the union's position, and invite a lockout in response to their suit.

Did I miss something and was the antitrust suit thrown out of court? You do realize that the players are already suing to make things like franchise tags, restricted free agency, and the draft illegal. That is one of the major points of the Brady case. If the players can argue that they would suffer irreparable harm by not halting franchise tags etc. until the case is settled, they can get an injuction. In fact, I think they may have a better argument than the lockout since players who are currently franchised or restricted free agents could argue that if they play under a franchise tag or restricted free agent tender and have a career ending injury, they will lose millions and if they were to win the case and the courts ruled they lost millions because of a rule that was illegal by Federal law that would cause irrepairable harm.

Personally, I think it is pretty clear they would bring suit. There are hundreds of players who suffer if the 2010 rules are in place and if they could get an injuction it could force the owners to cave. If their end game is to get leverage on the owners, why not force a 2010 rules where the rules that are detrimental to the players no longer exist while the rules detrimental to the owners do.

Again with hundreds of 5th and 6th year players being restricted free agents with a whole bunch of them only making a fraction of what they would be making as UFAs. The odds are good they are going to fight to get rid of the restricted free agency rule.

Besides, the owners already said when it looked like the lockout would be injoined that they would have a new set of rules.

 

[Triumph]

Not according to this editorial from Pro Football weekly editor Hub Arkush, and I have not seen anything that rebuts it.


Posted May 03, 2011 @ 2:32 p.m. ET
By Hub Arkush
The low point of the 2011 NFL draft for me was an interview I heard with DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, and Jeremy Schaap on ESPN radio, about a half hour before the draft actually began Thursday night.

Before I explain, let me set the table. Certainly by now we've all seen enough to understand clearly that this labor mess is about nothing more than greed and arrogance, and the NFL owners' desire to increase their profits and profit margins by taking back compensation currently being paid to the players, and severely limiting how much they can receive in the future.

To date the players have won just about every skirmish against the owners and are fairly well entrenched on the high ground. Right up until they decertified their union on March 11, the players continually offered to continue working under 2010 league rules while they negotiated if the owners would promise not to lock them out — the exclamation point here being that the 2010 rules were far less favorable to the players than the rules they played under from 2006-09 under the last Collective Bargaining Agreement.





Arkush concludes by saying that he believes Smith is leading the players down the wrong road and i agree with him on that, however he is clear about the fact that the players wanted to keep playing under 2010 rules.

Townes is right.

On a last ditch effort the players did offer to play out 2011 under last seasons rules, but the owners declined.

 

[lamafist]

Did I miss something and was the antitrust suit thrown out of court? You do realize that the players are already suing to make things like franchise tags, restricted free agency, and the draft illegal. That is one of the major points of the Brady case. If the players can argue that they would suffer irreparable harm by not halting franchise tags etc. until the case is settled, they can get an injuction. In fact, I think they may have a better argument than the lockout since players who are currently franchised or restricted free agents could argue that if they play under a franchise tag or restricted free agent tender and have a career ending injury, they will lose millions and if they were to win the case and the courts ruled they lost millions because of a rule that was illegal by Federal law that would cause irrepairable harm.

Personally, I think it is pretty clear they would bring suit. There are hundreds of players who suffer if the 2010 rules are in place and if they could get an injuction it could force the owners to cave. If their end game is to get leverage on the owners, why not force a 2010 rules where the rules that are detrimental to the players no longer exist while the rules detrimental to the owners do.

Again with hundreds of 5th and 6th year players being restricted free agents with a whole bunch of them only making a fraction of what they would be making as UFAs. The odds are good they are going to fight to get rid of the restricted free agency rule.

Besides, the owners already said when it looked like the lockout would be injoined that they would have a new set of rules.

As I've said, I believe the NFL is shielded from most liability for damages if they devolve to the last bargained agreement in place. The players could sue to have free agency and the draft declared illegal restraint of trade going forward, but not for damages incurred in 2011. And again, even if I'm wrong, the level of potential damages due to restricted free agency restrictions and the draft are peanuts compared to those of every single player under contract in the NFL.

And again, assuming the NFL gains no protections by reverting to the last agreement in place, there's still no good reason for the players to bring suit against the league absent a lockout. The players' primary weakness vs. the owners when it comes to leverage is that they can't afford a work stoppage for as long. If the league's not already in a work stoppage, grinding it to a halt with a lawsuit would actually hurt their position more than the owners'.

Finally, it's not as if the NFL couldn't have gotten an agreement from the players' to not file suit in return for continuing to operate under the 2010 rules -- something the players have already said they were willing to do.

 

[Shelterdog]

As I've said, I believe the NFL is shielded from most liability for damages if they devolve to the last bargained agreement in place.

This is just not right. There is no blanket antitrust exemption if you keep a CBA in place. None. Find me one cite anywhere that says this.

If you're a lawyer change jobs; if you're in law school drop out.

EDIT: Also you realize that the lawsuit can--and likely will--last for years while football is being played? You don't seem to understand that when you suggest a player lawsuit would bring the league to a halt.

 

[ausbacker]

First, the players never agreed to play under the 2010 rules. If the lockout ends tomorrow, there is no guarantee that doesn't set off a next round of petitions for injunctions. There is a good chance that the players would try to get an injuction barring the owners from franchising players and applying restricted free agent tenders.

Second, the only thing the owners have asked for in terms of lawsuits is for players to file workman's comp claims and cases in the states of the team they played for. Right now, most players sue in California because they have most worker friendly worker's comp laws in the U.S. All a player has to do is play one game in California in their career for California to allow them to file suit there. There is no provision in the past CBA on where the players can file suit, but the owners want it in a new CBA.

Third, I don't think that Smith is working for the agents' interest. I think he is working for the players' interest. I think he is just ill-suited for the job he was hired for. From day one, he have trashed the owners and talked about the negotiations as a war. A good negotiator doesn't treat their negotiation partner like the enemy and insult them to the press. You might do that in a civil lawsuit, but not in negotiations. Even if you are agressive in your negotiations, you need to make your opponent want to come to an agreement. Smith has been litigating far too long. Also, I think he sold the players on getting certain things and I think he knew all along his best chance of getting them is winning them in court rather than negotiate for them.

What would lead you to the conclusion that he is working for anyone's interest other than DeMaurice Smith's? He's a plague on both of the houses from my observations of his public commentary from Day 1.

 

[fluoropolymer]

I remember the first time I went to an NFL game. It was in Anaheim and the Rams were playing the Dallas Cowboys. I was way the hell up in boonies looking down onto this little field with players the size of ants. But you could see Tom Landry and his hat from a mile away. One of my strongest impressions was "what the hell are these guys doing playing this little boys game".

It seems to me that we, the fans, are the ones getting screwed in this deal; just like we have been getting screwed for the last 20 years. Is this game worth spending $1,000 to take the family to a sporting event? Not for me. It's a game.

Maybe it's time the fans took the game back. NUTS to the NFL team owners, and NUTS to the NFLPA. And just for the hell of it, NUTS to the NCAA. You all have ruined a great game. Let's leave it to the kids.

I personally am looking forward to Friday nights this fall, and D-II (or whatever the NCAA wants to call it this year) on Saturday. Looks like Sunday is going to be dedicated to the honey-do list.

 

[Rob0729]

As I've said, I believe the NFL is shielded from most liability for damages if they devolve to the last bargained agreement in place. The players could sue to have free agency and the draft declared illegal restraint of trade going forward, but not for damages incurred in 2011. And again, even if I'm wrong, the level of potential damages due to restricted free agency restrictions and the draft are peanuts compared to those of every single player under contract in the NFL.

And again, assuming the NFL gains no protections by reverting to the last agreement in place, there's still no good reason for the players to bring suit against the league absent a lockout. The players' primary weakness vs. the owners when it comes to leverage is that they can't afford a work stoppage for as long. If the league's not already in a work stoppage, grinding it to a halt with a lawsuit would actually hurt their position more than the owners'.

Finally, it's not as if the NFL couldn't have gotten an agreement from the players' to not file suit in return for continuing to operate under the 2010 rules -- something the players have already said they were willing to do.

I admit I am no labor or antitrust lawyer, but I believe you are wrong.

First, the players are suing to get rid of things like franchise tags and restricted free agency. They can apply for and get an injunction to force the league from applying them until the case is finalized if they can prove that all or a portion of their group will suffer irrepairable harm and they can prove they are likely to win the court case. Obviously restricted free agents will suffer irrepairable harm if they play this year under the a restricted free agent tender if they suffer a significant injury that will affect future contracts. Even without an injury they can argue that waiting another year to get to free agency means they will lose a year of maximizing their value.

Second, getting an injunction does not stop the playing of football this year so it won't hurt the players in any way. It just means every player not under contract would be a free agent. They wouldn't file a reject for an injunction to stop play. They would file a request for an injunction barring the teams from applying the franchise tag or enforcing restricted free agent tenders only.

Third, from everything I have ever read, the players have never agreed to anything if the lockout ends. The certainly did not agree to play under the 2010 rules. No way would the players agree to that because it hurts a lot of players by making them restricted free agents rather than unrestricted ones. It is doubtful they would agree to not file suits in exchange to going to the 2010 rules since the 2010. Please provide proof of your claim. If DeMaurice Smith offered to play under the 2010 rules and not to bring more suits, the players would revolt because it would cut them off at the knees.

 

[Rob0729]

What would lead you to the conclusion that he is working for anyone's interest other than DeMaurice Smith's? He's a plague on both of the houses from my observations of his public commentary from Day 1.

He is definitely out to make a name for himself and seems to love to hear himself talk. I think he does have the players' interests at heart. I just think he is ill suited for the task at hand. He is a great litigator. Unfortunately, this situation needs a negotiator.

 

[ausbacker]

He is definitely out to make a name for himself and seems to love to hear himself talk. I think he does have the players' interests at heart. I just think he is ill suited for the task at hand. He is a great litigator. Unfortunately, this situation needs a negotiator.

I agree with you on that except I believe he's out to make a name for himself using the CBA and moonlighting the player's interests.

Litigators are always problematic in that they argue fine print which most people could find a reasonable common ground and move on from. This is the unfortunate cycle that we're all stuck in now thanks to ego.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Not according to this editorial from Pro Football weekly editor Hub Arkush, and I have not seen anything that rebuts it.


Posted May 03, 2011 @ 2:32 p.m. ET
By Hub Arkush
The low point of the 2011 NFL draft for me was an interview I heard with DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, and Jeremy Schaap on ESPN radio, about a half hour before the draft actually began Thursday night.

Before I explain, let me set the table. Certainly by now we've all seen enough to understand clearly that this labor mess is about nothing more than greed and arrogance, and the NFL owners' desire to increase their profits and profit margins by taking back compensation currently being paid to the players, and severely limiting how much they can receive in the future.

To date the players have won just about every skirmish against the owners and are fairly well entrenched on the high ground. Right up until they decertified their union on March 11, the players continually offered to continue working under 2010 league rules while they negotiated if the owners would promise not to lock them out — the exclamation point here being that the 2010 rules were far less favorable to the players than the rules they played under from 2006-09 under the last Collective Bargaining Agreement.





Arkush concludes by saying that he believes Smith is leading the players down the wrong road and i agree with him on that, however he is clear about the fact that the players wanted to keep playing under 2010 rules.

It is the rules that the players played under in 2010 that caused this mess. I am sure that the players would love to continue to play under those rules, but the reason why the owners decided to use their op out ability was because of the rules. The circular logic of the owners opting out and then allowing the players to continue to play under them is almost mind numbing.

It doesn't matter of the players want to play under the old rules because from the owners perspective they didn't work. This issue is a canard, a little ditty thrown out by the NFLPA* to allow them to claim some kind of moral superiority. A quick thumb nail history will suffice:

1) The owners sign a very bad CBA agreement
2) The players enjoy that agreement for 4 years, with the cap rising from $102M to $128M in 4 years.
3) The owners had the ability to op out and notified the union that they were going to use that option.
4) DeMaurice Smith is hired
5) DeMaurice Smith gets approval to decertify from each team
6) As far as I can tell, no offers are excahnged until after the 2010 eseason
7) After negotiations are heldd the players decide to walk out of talks and decertify
8) DeMaurice Smith is shmuck who cares more about his reputation than he does about the players he is supposed to be representing.

During this period the economy crashed, previously sound businesses went under, customers and vendors have less money to invest in tickets and advertising, stadium debt service cannot be rewritten, food costs increase, fuel costs increase, air fare costs increase, health insurance costs increase, team profit margins fall. Reasonable people can differ on remedies, but facts cannot be denied.

The owners suck, the players suck, the lawyers suck, the judges suck. The fans are being used, but the players, who like to call themselves partners in the business, refuse to act like a partner except for when that payday comes around. Sorry, neither side is very sympathetic but the owners are trying to assure future success of the league while the players are trying to fund their retirements.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

If the owners wanted to be allowed to dictate what they pay their employees, they could start doing so tomorrow -- as long as they don't collude with one another to keep wages down, as that's against the law, absent a collectively bargained agreement with their workforce.

That would mean no salary floor, no salary cap, and no more class-action lawsuit.

The owners, for the most part, don't want this, the fans don't want this, and the NFLPA doesn't want this. A few owners (Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder, e.g.) might want this, and a few current star players might, but it's not in the longterm interest of the league's future for management and labor alike.

Dictate may have been a little strong, however the concept of what I said is sound. A player is fond of telling us about a 3.5 year career, team owners need to worry about 5 years down the road, or ten years or 30 years in the case the Krafts who built their own stadium. Without football that stadium is just a big hole in the hill with seats, in a town that doesn't like visitors, in a state that doesn't like business. Kraft has to look out for his family and he understands that while this sitation sucks, the alternative is not being able to pay his debt service in a few years.

 

[patsoxfan]

Simple
Currently, the owners take $1 billion off the top before dividing the rest. Last season, the players got almost 60 percent of the remaining $8 billion. Owners would like to increase that initial takeaway to $2 billion, which would reduce players' overall share of the pie from about $4.8 billion to about $4.2 billion. Owners also want to extend the NFL's regular season from 16 to 18 games, and cut pay for rookies. Word is the players offered a 50%-50% split and the owners wanted a larger %. The owners did this, the players are putting other issues on the table because they dont have much to bargain with. It is rumored that the owners put the 18 game schedule on the table to have another chip to play.