Goodell paints doomsday scenario

[Ring 6]

In the final analysis the players could legally win and yet ruin themselves. The people who pay the bills are the owners and they are saying they can't continue as the present CBA was drawn.

Players monies are at or near the maximum they will ever be. Sooner of later Fan interest will shift elsewhere, and with it TV revenues. Imagine the problems when the pie shrinks, and most players are told their present contracts must be negotiated downward.

The Lawyers will exercise the rules for Antitrust law, which never considered the needs of sports leagues and are legally indefensible. DeMaurice the lawyer wants to prove his is a tough guy, and Hubris will enable him to win a legal, but Pyhrric victory. The players union will sue and sue for constraint and win, every one of the victories, which makes the league less reasonable or interesting to the fans.

When wiser heads prevailed, MLB obtained an antitrust provision to accommodate the reasonable needs of a sports league. No one else has such a deal. Yes, the player's lawyers could win every legal battle, and ruin it for the present stars, present players, the marginal youthful ones, and tomorrows players too.

Although the Owners sign the checks, the Fans ultimately provide the funds, through TV watching or buying tickets. Without a competitive environment football is much more prone to contraction with the limited season providing fewer opportunities for revenues.

But in the short term, the Owners write the paychecks and they are no longer willing to write those paychecks. So the players lose.

Rosters will likely shrink down to 36 players or so, as they used to be, players will be expected to go back to two-way players, shortening their careers. Pensions and health plans will be terminated; and everyone will be out for themselves, in their personal services contracts.

Within a few years the small-city franchises will die, or create a series of minor/major leagues with graduation to the higher league for winners; and losers falling into the lesser leagues as soccer does, now.

Some successful businessmen like Kraft will say no thanks, and sell out. Other like Snyder will find no one to write about them, and leave too.

Eventually things will settle out, with a dozen teams; and each with a relative handful of players each, most of whom last only 2 or 3 years so the stars are limited to QBs and RBs.

I agree that if the NFLPA* gets everything they are suing for, they will end up much worse for it. They really either don't want what they are asking for, or are too ignorant to know it will not turn out well.
When I see Smith on TV today, at this stage, talking about nothing other than how disgusted he is with the NFL, I wonder what his end game really is.
The NFLPA* is wasting a built in legal advantage (the fact that if they move forward without collectively bargaining, the very operation of the league to date will be illegal). I have no clue what they would hope to gain by 'winning' that judgment. But if they were smart, they would be at the negotiating table (yes they can negotiated because every past, present and future player is represented in the lawsuit) with Goddells letter in hand stating that they will let it come to that if they cannot come to a CBA they are happy with.

Now, to the other, equally dysfunctional, side. While I vehemenlty disagree with the positions that feel the owners should not be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit (such as thinking they should be required to turn over financials, or prove a reason why they are negotiating for what they are, etc) that does not mean the decisions they are making are good ones.
First, the lockout was a poor move. Continuing along under the no cap rules would have allowed them to hold the power, by setting whatever payroll critieria they wished to. Frankly, they could have set their own revenue split informally, and turned it into a payroll budget. There was no need to force a work stoppage. They could have controlled it however they wanted to. The CBA would have allowed the 18 game schedule change without NFLPA* approval, and payrolls could have shrunk however the owners wanted them to. They would have had the upper hand, and could have waited it out.
Now, they sit here chasing their tail after a lockout that doesnt help them.
They should walk in tomorrow, end the lock out, tear up the CBA, cancel the draft, and set all players not under contract free. Then they should start filling their roster with players who will sign for $150,000, even guarantee it. The undrafted players who expected to get millions will no doubt sit out and wait for more. The 'marquee' free agents will certainly not sign contracts that fit the owners budget, since they won't sign a CBA based upon it. THAT would break the will and negotiating strength of the NFLPA* faster than any injunction.
That would be the 'win' that is really a loss.

For whatever reason, though, neither side seems to really understand what they should be doing with the bulit in advantage they each have, but are failing to use. Perhaps each side feels that if it really pulled that card, then it would really result in a cancelled season.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting article.

The points Goodell communicates are, in fact, the implications of total free agency advocated by the trade association lawyers. I think the article would have been far more powerful if it was presented more objectively as: here are the implications of the football environment demanded by the players advocates. With his doomsday opening, the piece appears slanted.

The commentary appears designed to speak not to the fans, but to the players themselves. Interesting platform choice, though. All the negative points are related to player risks. He doesn't spend as much time wondering about the impact on the small market teams - would Jacksonville and Buffalo fold? Would the owners lose their investment?

It would be very interesting to play a season or two under that system. In the short term, owners could easily make such a system work. You'd probably get a system like baseball, although there are rookie-six year minimum salaries in baseball. But you'd likely see a couple NYY/Boston big salary teams and a couple FLA Marlins payrolls. The fringe starter/career special teamer would make a LOT less money.

Sam Aiken, Dan Connolly, Rob Ninkovich, Eric Alexander, Marquise Murrell, Brandon McGowan -- all signed $700K or more deals. That class would probably pay a significant price. While their Pro Bowl brethren could potentially double their salaries.

At that point, no one would be claiming that dissolving the union was a sham. The players group would look nothing like a union.

And yes, contrary to the rumblings of those trying to convince you one side or the other has the high moral ground, the only reason that there is a CBA, a draft, a cap, collectively bargained waiver of anti-trust rights, is in order to have a competitive league. Both sides lose without that.

 

[Luke Skywelker]

And thus, the NFL becomes MLB, a dying sport because of the lack of competitive balance. MLB is the most mistructured sport out there - honestly, if that's what came of the NFL, I would take a full season lockout. The only thing keeping baseball alive is history, fantasy sports and a sunny day to take junior to the park for a hot dog. And this coming from a guy that played minor league baseball.

 

[Ring 6]

And thus, the NFL becomes MLB, a dying sport because of the lack of competitive balance. MLB is the most mistructured sport out there - honestly, if that's what came of the NFL, I would take a full season lockout. The only thing keeping baseball alive is history, fantasy sports and a sunny day to take junior to the park for a hot dog. And this coming from a guy that played minor league baseball.

It is very different though too.
Baseball is a much harder watch, and I think 90%+ of sportsfans will agree.
Baseball has 162 games and its popularity is at least in part based upon statistics and individual records, while a single football game is an event and the excitement of the game is paramount.
Football shows year after year that teams do not perform as expected. It would be much harder to 'buy a champion', and the rosters are so big, it would take so much more money to be the "Yankees of the NFL".
Part of the lack of interest you cite in baseball is the game itself. I don't think that it would be significantly more popular with a salary cap, while football may not really suffer much without one.

 

[mb6592]

It is very different though too.
Baseball is a much harder watch, and I think 90%+ of sportsfans will agree.
Baseball has 162 games and its popularity is at least in part based upon statistics and individual records, while a single football game is an event and the excitement of the game is paramount.
Football shows year after year that teams do not perform as expected. It would be much harder to 'buy a champion', and the rosters are so big, it would take so much more money to be the "Yankees of the NFL".
Part of the lack of interest you cite in baseball is the game itself. I don't think that it would be significantly more popular with a salary cap, while football may not really suffer much without one.

Pirates, Royals, Reds fans, just to name a few obvious ones, have left the game in droves. I don't see how any fan, short of maybe the 6-8 haves, can follow baseball. "Let me draft well, get lucky enough to put together a great young team and win a world series within an very small window of opportunity before our team get pilfered by the Yankees" is a fools game.

 

[jczxohn1]

I
Football shows year after year that teams do not perform as expected. It would be much harder to 'buy a champion', and the rosters are so big, it would take so much more money to be the "Yankees of the NFL"./QUOTE]

We in NE are not too worried because we assume the Pats will be one of the "haves". IMO, teams in such places as Carolina, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Ariz, Cinn., Cleveland, San Diego, etc., who either have a hard time filling their stadiums under the present system or are on life support with revenue sharing are very worried about this possibility. Further, one would imagine it would be easier to 'buy a champion' rather than harder. Some teams may choose not to field a full roster or one with largely rookie contracts.

Without a CBA, one might also speculate about the relationship between pro and college football. With no draft and other rules, agents and teams could approach and sign college players, even in midseason, if they were willing to give up their amateur status. In order for college football to remain a viable entity, the NCAA would have to start allowing a stipend to players. The NFL is the body that prevents these abuses and if they attempt to maintain the status quo, they could be sued in an anti-trust action. The NFLPA doesn't seem to be acting in the best interests of football as a whole, but rather as a power-grabbing "partner" intent only on hurting the NFL.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I
Football shows year after year that teams do not perform as expected. It would be much harder to 'buy a champion', and the rosters are so big, it would take so much more money to be the "Yankees of the NFL"./QUOTE]

We in NE are not too worried because we assume the Pats will be one of the "haves". IMO, teams in such places as Carolina, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Ariz, Cinn., Cleveland, San Diego, etc., who either have a hard time filling their stadiums under the present system or are on life support with revenue sharing

Key assumption. Kraft has said he wouldn't play the ownership game were there to be no salary cap. He does NOT have the deep pockets or the insane ego that some multi-billionaire owners have. He'll sell. The Pats will become the BankOfAmerica Sox of football.

Me, in that case I'll drop the NFL*. Owners will see their market shrink, not grow.

 

[peterforpats]

I'm really angry right now. I've watched these unions destroy every sport they touch, I've stopped watching every sport except football because of this BS. Football is all I watch now, and that will end if there isn't a deal that gives stability in player movement.

I remember playing UPUFF baseball for a couple years, I never watched a single game doing it. NOT ONE. Players have become laundry everywhere except football. I want stability and strong rules that bind a player enough for me to follow that players career. Otherwise , I'm out.

WOW- get a life. it is the players life,it's just your entertainment. sorry the world doesn't revolve around your pleasure.

 

[Ring 6]

Pirates, Royals, Reds fans, just to name a few obvious ones, have left the game in droves. I don't see how any fan, short of maybe the 6-8 haves, can follow baseball. "Let me draft well, get lucky enough to put together a great young team and win a world series within an very small window of opportunity before our team get pilfered by the Yankees" is a fools game.

I was pointing out that there are many different factors than just whether the small market teams are competitive that make football more popular than baseball.

 

[Ring 6]

Key assumption. Kraft has said he wouldn't play the ownership game were there to be no salary cap. He does NOT have the deep pockets or the insane ego that some multi-billionaire owners have. He'll sell. The Pats will become the BankOfAmerica Sox of football.

Me, in that case I'll drop the NFL*. Owners will see their market shrink, not grow.

That is one direction it could go. Another is that the NFL accepts the 'offer' in the lawsuit, stops the draft, enacts unlimited Free Agency and the owners show constraint. The union will be recertified and sitting at the bargaining table in a hurry in that case.
I agree at will employment will end up bad for all 3 sides (players, owners, fans) but just as the players are using it as a hammer, the owners could too, and it would probably be a better tool for them in the long run.

 

[dhamz]

The "doomsday scenario" apparently is what the players said should be implemented immediately in the brief they filed to Judge Nelson in response to the owner's stay request.

 

[Aßßynormal]

How do you figure? The players have made more than the owners, a lot more, for a long time. They get half the revenue. The owners get half the revenue, and then pay all of the expenses from their half. It is essentially impossible for the owners to make more than the players.

Because Payroll (and benefits) will now go down. Maybe not in NE but in 25 other locations. While the revenue will remain nearly the same..... until the TV contracts are gone. I can see Cincinnati literally cutting 20 marginal players and resigning them (or their replacements) for much less money. Why not, it's a free market. Their is an adequate supply of replacement players in most positions. The owners are not going to lose money, they'll likely make more in the short-term. We'll be watching a reduced quality product.

*
*
*

Oh, another poster .... guess what? Extreme scenarios happen all the time: Baseball, Hockey, Munich, racing the Titantic ..... I can go on. It only takes a couple of ego driven or agenda driven or deluded people to make the world a crappier place. People suck when given power.

 

[Aßßynormal]

WOW- get a life. it is the players life,it's just your entertainment. sorry the world doesn't revolve around your pleasure.

I have a life, thank you for your honest concern. Also, thank you for explaining how the world works. You're very kind.

 

[Joker]

I have a life, thank you for your honest concern. Also, thank you for explaining how the world works. You're very kind.

whenever I question existence I turn to this...



there, I feel better now...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

That is one direction it could go. Another is that the NFL accepts the 'offer' in the lawsuit, stops the draft, enacts unlimited Free Agency and the owners show constraint. The union will be recertified and sitting at the bargaining table in a hurry in that case.
I agree at will employment will end up bad for all 3 sides (players, owners, fans) but just as the players are using it as a hammer, the owners could too, and it would probably be a better tool for them in the long run.

I'm not at all confident I live in that alternative universe. Would there not be a you-know-what storm over collusion at the least?

 

[dhamz]

I'm not at all confident I live in that alternative universe. Would there not be a you-know-what storm over collusion at the least?

Yes there would be. Player agents were already all over twitter screaming collusion because they couldn't get their guys signed last night.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'm really angry right now. I've watched these unions destroy every sport they touch, I've stopped watching every sport except football because of this BS. Football is all I watch now, and that will end if there isn't a deal that gives stability in player movement.

I remember playing UPUFF baseball for a couple years, I never watched a single game doing it. NOT ONE. Players have become laundry everywhere except football. I want stability and strong rules that bind a player enough for me to follow that players career. Otherwise , I'm out.

You're pointing to the one major sport that doesn't have guaranteed contracts and claiming that it has less player movement than the others? Really?

How many Patriots from 2007 are still on the team, btw? Answer that then come back and talk about "strong rules that bind a player enough for me to follow that players career".

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not at all confident I live in that alternative universe. Would there not be a you-know-what storm over collusion at the least?

That is the other side of the coin. The big problem is that if the RESULT that collusion would produce, ie lower payrolls, happened, it can be taken as proof of collusion whether it actually existed or not.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That is the other side of the coin. The big problem is that if the RESULT that collusion would produce, ie lower payrolls, happened, it can be taken as proof of collusion whether it actually existed or not.

Lower payroll would not be end-all proof of tacit collusion. Tacit collusion simply means that collusion can be practiced without an explicit agreement. You still must present fairly compelling evidence that collusion is happening.

Lacking a CBA, of course it will be absurdly easy to prove that collusion is occurring, because... well, that's what's happening. That's just recognition of fact.

 

[Ring 6]

Lower payroll would not be end-all proof of tacit collusion. Tacit collusion simply means that collusion can be practiced without an explicit agreement. You still must present fairly compelling evidence that collusion is happening.

Lacking a CBA, of course it will be absurdly easy to prove that collusion is occurring, because... well, that's what's happening. That's just recognition of fact.

You made my point for me. You conclude it has to be collusion without a single fact.
Showing higher payroll under a CBA then lower payroll after would probably be accepted as proof, even with no evidence that there was a collective effort to drive down pay, rather than an industry wide change of circumstances.