Interesting tidbit from PFT about Jeff Kessler, NFLPA Outside Attorney

[MoLewisrocks]

Its such a complete waste of time and breath to talk about the NFL without a draft. I dont care what Kessler wants. It's never happening.

I agree, but only because we all know the decertification is a sham and once they gain leverage via the courts the union will recertify and negotiate a settlement deal to their liking. Which just underscores it's a sham. Absent the union there could not be a draft or any limitations on FA or any other collective league rules on anti trust grounds...

 

[townes]

I agree, but only because we all know the decertification is a sham and once they gain leverage via the courts the union will recertify and negotiate a settlement deal to their liking. Which just underscores it's a sham. Absent the union there could not be a draft or any limitations on FA or any other collective league rules on anti trust grounds...

Do you realize you are actually arguing that the decertification is a sham because they will make a deal but are also arguing that the union isn't going to make a deal and their goal is no deal.

Which is it?


The union wants the lock-out over so football can go on and a fair deal created, it is the owners that don't want that.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Do you realize you are actually arguing that the decertification is a sham because they will make a deal but are also arguing that the union isn't going to make a deal and their goal is no deal.

Which is it?


The union wants the lock-out over so football can go on and a fair deal created, it is the owners that don't want that.

Football can go on if the lockout is upheld, too, because that will also bring both sides back to the table - just change the level of the footings... Might even bring it back faster than rulings and appeals. The reason? The majority on neither side wants to lose one game of the season...

The union's goal has been no deal without court leverage on their side. They were willing to decertify in order to accomplish that goal because we all know the decertification is a sham and while they want some of the things Kessler barks about in a dream scenario, they also want the protections that a union affords them via arbitration and representation and the parity (to compete for their services) that revenue sharing and collectively negotiated national TV deals and even a cap affords the majority of them.

If the owners were the true villians here they would have welcomed decertification as the ultimate self inflicted union buster and embraced every man for himself even if it screwed the game for most of them and most of us and most of the players. It's the players who are suing for terms that would essentially end the league as we know it.

It's beginning to sound like the judge is leaning towards sending them both back to mediated negotiation. Only this time they would be mediated by someone reporting back to her as she mulls the remainder of her decisions... Red herring issues won't be tolerated in that kind of environment. And if one side shows itself to be going through the motions with no intent of reaching an accord, that may alter her view of the entire case.

 

[lamafist]

I think you are wrong. A draft is great for the NFL and any sport (that is why all the major sports do it).

First, it helps create parity which helps keep the popularity. With no draft, a lot of the best talent will not want to go to the worst teams. One of the biggest agendas a rookie has early in his career is to show his talent to cash in on his first free agent contract. If you are a WR, would you want to go to a team with no QB? If you are a QB, would you want to go to a team where the coach is on the hotseat and after learning a system for a year or two, you have to learn another one? It will keep bad teams bad forever.

Second, the draft is a huge revenue generator for the league which benefits both the owners and the players. Why do you think Goodell moved the draft to primetime and spreaded it over three days? It is the second most watched event in the NFL after the Super Bowl year after year. By making rookies free agents right off the bat, that would be a huge revenue stream for the NFL lost. Lose-lose for both sides.

Third, it helps to make the NFL a yearlong sport for the fans. Fans read up on the prospects, study mock drafts, watch endless hours of NFL Network and ESPN learning about the prospects and listening to the rumors of who the teams might be interested in (all this generates more revenue for the owners and players). Many fans have draft parties that rival Super Bowl parties. By just having a draft free agency, it would be like the regular free agency where there will be a lot of interest for a very short period of time, but no event to tie it to and after the top players signed players getting signed in dribs and drabs over the course of a few months.

The draft is a huge part of what the NFL is and it would be hurt if it went away.

I don't really see the draft as being a major driver in the NFL's parity. The draft has been around since the 30's, and has existed during period of greater and lesser parity in the NFL. Baseball has a draft, and is everyone's go-to example of a sport that lacks parity.

The NFL's degree of revenue sharing and hard salary cap are what set it apart from other American sports, and, I believe, wherein its organizational advantages over other sports lie (as opposed to intrinsic advantages, like being a more complex and interesting sport.) It's the revenue sharing and salary cap that makes it difficult to afford the kind of depth that keeps solid 2nd-tier players on benches rather than filling important gaps in teams trying to build around young talent, and its the revenue sharing that ensures that all the franchises will be able to afford to build their teams, so that losing games, losing fans and losing money don't all become self-perpetuating.

With a meaningful cap in place, the draft has actually become at times harmful to teams its supposed to help. Many teams have been set back for years after being forced to over-invest their resources into a #1 overall pick they can't trade out of. Restructuring the rookie wage scale is only a partial fix at most -- having limited the number of teams an incoming rookie can negotiate with to 1, the NFL is constrained to a salary structure that isn't obviously below that players' market value would be.

Meanwhile, there are numerous benefits to the franchises:
* GMs have greater flexibility to build their teams the way they want to. The randomness in the draft is fair because it inconveniences all teams -- by why inconvenience them unnecessarily? Teams will be able to be built with greater coherency to their GM and coache's vision.

* No more rookie holdouts. No more players unhappy with the coach or system they were drafted into, or frustrated with where they were drafted, and taking it out during in artificially constrained negotiations with their team. Getting signed onto a team before camp suddenly becomes entirely the players' problem, and not any one team's.

* Salaries that better represent the players' true perceived value. A top heavy draft will have top heavy salary distribution, etc.

* No artificial restriction necessary on contract structure. With rookies free to shop around, there no need for minimum and maximum contract lengths and bonus structures. If a player thinks he just needs year to prove himself worth a bigger payday, he can sign the prove-it deal, with one cheap year followed by a sizable roster bonus in the 2nd, the way Stallworth did with us.

As for the talk about the draft as a big money-maker -- sure, but that's not because of the draft structure itself, which is quite boring. People watch the 1st round or two of the draft because it's how they find out what exciting new players their team is going to have next year. If ESPN can pull the kind of ratings it did with "The Decision," then the NFL should be able to kill with an entire day of 60+ Mini-Decisions in a sport far more popular than basketball.

I've never heard a convincing argument why the draft is inherently more television-friendly than any other option, so I'd be very interested if anyone can produce one.

Also, it would cost the owners nothing, yet be seen as a huge concession on their part, and that's always good for negotiations.

 

[lamafist]

I agree, but only because we all know the decertification is a sham and once they gain leverage via the courts the union will recertify and negotiate a settlement deal to their liking. Which just underscores it's a sham. Absent the union there could not be a draft or any limitations on FA or any other collective league rules on anti trust grounds...

The NFL has an uphill battle arguing that decertification can every ruled a sham. The NFLPA is not arguing that their decertification is not ad hoc -- it clearly is. Given the inability of the union to fulfill its job to secure a labor agreement, the players are seeking to avail themselves of their rights as individuals seeking employment. The right NOT to be represented by a union is absolute, and individual employees are not subject to the same constraints about negotiating in good faith.

It's the subsequent re-forming of a union that the NFL could easily argue was a sham, if they could show that the union had no intention of entering collective bargaining in good faith, and only intended to decertify again. After the last time the NFLPA decertified, prior to the 1993 lawsuit, they only re-certified at the NFL's request. This would certainly happen again if the NFL thought they were losing an anti-trust suit.

 

[townes]

Football can go on if the lockout is upheld, too, because that will also bring both sides back to the table - just change the level of the footings... Might even bring it back faster than rulings and appeals. The reason? The majority on neither side wants to lose one game of the season...

Actually football cannot go on if the lock-out isn't lifted, that's the point of the lock-out, to stop the game dead in its tracks and break the players to their will and for huge financial gains for owners.

 

[townes]

The union's goal has been no deal without court leverage on their side. They were willing to decertify in order to accomplish that goal because we all know the decertification is a sham and while they want some of the things Kessler barks about in a dream scenario, they also want the protections that a union affords them via arbitration and representation and the parity (to compete for their services) that revenue sharing and collectively negotiated national TV deals and even a cap affords the majority of them.

The union had its reps there to make a deal and the owners didn't want one. The decertification was forced by the owners bad faith and the fact remains that you cannot argue both that the decertification was a sham because they want to be a union and cut a deal, and that they don't want a deal and actually want unfettered free agency because if they wanted that they would not return to being a union.

You are trying to demonize the players by claiming they want to kill the game as we know it when the truth is that they have never even hinted at such a proposal, and in fact have always been willing to go along with the current structure of draft, free agency etc....

The owners are trying to break the players because they know huge money is coming in the future TV deals and they don't want the players sharing those gains. That is what this is all about.

 

[townes]

If the owners were the true villians here they would have welcomed decertification as the ultimate self inflicted union buster and embraced every man for himself even if it screwed the game for most of them and most of us and most of the players. It's the players who are suing for terms that would essentially end the league as we know it.

Once again your argument makes no sense, as you claim that the decertification is so the players can have an unfettered free market and that it would ruin the game but that is actually what the owners should want.

The players have never sought the things you claim they have sought and in fact have agreed to them repeatedly, and word was during the "mediation" that they had agreed to a rookie cap. True or not I have no idea, but they certainly weren't arguing for the end of the draft and actually ended up canceling their draft night show so the league can have the stage to themselves, hardly the mark of an organization looking to end the draft.

 

[townes]

The NFL has an uphill battle arguing that decertification can every ruled a sham. The NFLPA is not arguing that their decertification is not ad hoc -- it clearly is. Given the inability of the union to fulfill its job to secure a labor agreement, the players are seeking to avail themselves of their rights as individuals seeking employment. The right NOT to be represented by a union is absolute, and individual employees are not subject to the same constraints about negotiating in good faith.

It's the subsequent re-forming of a union that the NFL could easily argue was a sham, if they could show that the union had no intention of entering collective bargaining in good faith, and only intended to decertify again. After the last time the NFLPA decertified, prior to the 1993 lawsuit, they only re-certified at the NFL's request. This would certainly happen again if the NFL thought they were losing an anti-trust suit.

The judge made a point of telling David Boies that it is hard to claim the decertification is a sham when the players effectively gave up their right to strike, which is a significant stake.

 

[plk]

As for the talk about the draft as a big money-maker --

I bet that that auctioning off to the highest bidding team the best players in prime time would produce more viewer interest, and thus more money, than the current format. (It might be better to not call it an "auction" because of the historical associations of that term.)

 

[Rob0729]

I don't really see the draft as being a major driver in the NFL's parity. The draft has been around since the 30's, and has existed during period of greater and lesser parity in the NFL. Baseball has a draft, and is everyone's go-to example of a sport that lacks parity.

The NFL's degree of revenue sharing and hard salary cap are what set it apart from other American sports, and, I believe, wherein its organizational advantages over other sports lie (as opposed to intrinsic advantages, like being a more complex and interesting sport.) It's the revenue sharing and salary cap that makes it difficult to afford the kind of depth that keeps solid 2nd-tier players on benches rather than filling important gaps in teams trying to build around young talent, and its the revenue sharing that ensures that all the franchises will be able to afford to build their teams, so that losing games, losing fans and losing money don't all become self-perpetuating.

With a meaningful cap in place, the draft has actually become at times harmful to teams its supposed to help. Many teams have been set back for years after being forced to over-invest their resources into a #1 overall pick they can't trade out of. Restructuring the rookie wage scale is only a partial fix at most -- having limited the number of teams an incoming rookie can negotiate with to 1, the NFL is constrained to a salary structure that isn't obviously below that players' market value would be.

Meanwhile, there are numerous benefits to the franchises:
* GMs have greater flexibility to build their teams the way they want to. The randomness in the draft is fair because it inconveniences all teams -- by why inconvenience them unnecessarily? Teams will be able to be built with greater coherency to their GM and coache's vision.

* No more rookie holdouts. No more players unhappy with the coach or system they were drafted into, or frustrated with where they were drafted, and taking it out during in artificially constrained negotiations with their team. Getting signed onto a team before camp suddenly becomes entirely the players' problem, and not any one team's.

* Salaries that better represent the players' true perceived value. A top heavy draft will have top heavy salary distribution, etc.

* No artificial restriction necessary on contract structure. With rookies free to shop around, there no need for minimum and maximum contract lengths and bonus structures. If a player thinks he just needs year to prove himself worth a bigger payday, he can sign the prove-it deal, with one cheap year followed by a sizable roster bonus in the 2nd, the way Stallworth did with us.

As for the talk about the draft as a big money-maker -- sure, but that's not because of the draft structure itself, which is quite boring. People watch the 1st round or two of the draft because it's how they find out what exciting new players their team is going to have next year. If ESPN can pull the kind of ratings it did with "The Decision," then the NFL should be able to kill with an entire day of 60+ Mini-Decisions in a sport far more popular than basketball.

I've never heard a convincing argument why the draft is inherently more television-friendly than any other option, so I'd be very interested if anyone can produce one.

Also, it would cost the owners nothing, yet be seen as a huge concession on their part, and that's always good for negotiations.

First, the draft is certainly a major factor in parity. The draft has been around since the 1930s, but free agency hasn't. That means teams that have stretches of superior drafts could create a dynasty because they could retain their HOF players without a cap restricting that. The draft has certainly been a major factor in parity, but not the only factor.

Here are some of the things you miss and direct responses to your point:

- The draft generates tens of millions off the draft between TV rights to ESPN, commercial on the NFL Network, licensing to draft publications, etc. The players get 60% of that revenue right now. Lose that money and the salary cap goes down because of it.
- Comparing the baseball draft and the NFL draft is bogus. Exactly how many prospects drafted in the MLB draft enter MLB immediately? Unlike football, a large majority of the players drafted in baseball are raw prospects with little or no college experience and spend years in the minors before they come out. These players are far more drafted on potential than NFL prospects. This comparison is like saying you shouldn't buy a Macbook because Dell laptops are constantly infected with viruses. Weak example. I would agree if there was a football minor league and NFL teams drafted guys right out of high school and let them develop in the minors, the draft would be irrelevant.
- First, all sports have a degree of revenue sharing. Second, the NFL clearly does not have a true hard cap. There are ways to spend over the cap by giving things like NLTBE bonuses where cap money can be pushed into the next year. The revenue sharing and salary cap do play into parity, but you miss the real dollar aspect of the cap system. Teams can spend well over the cap (or well under the cap) in real dollars because of bonuses. Bypassing the draft will help teams with a lot of cash to pay out large bonuses (Washington, Dallas) and hurt teams who cannot pay out large bonuses because of cash flow (Buffalo, Jacksonville). Daniel Snyder can grab two or three first round caliber players (or more) in a free market system by giving them large signing bonuses and low salaries on longer term deals to make it more attractive to go to Washington.
- Just because a team drafts poorly and is hamstrung because of it doesn't mean that would be rectified in a free market system. The Jets drafted Vernon Gholston with the seventh pick and he turned into a major bust. If there was no draft, do you think that someone wouldn't have given him a contract the same level as what he got? That team would still be burdened with with his cap dollars. Besides, the way the cap has grown in recent years, few teams are really burdened with salary cap hell because of poor drafting anymore. Signing highly touted busts to large contracts is not going to change in a free market system. In fact, with a bidding war for the high talent, these high priced mistakes could be more costly to teams and parity.
- I disagree that no draft gives GMs more flexibility. It will for some. For others it will give them less. If you are the Carolina Panthers, you get to select any player you want in this year's draft. If they settle on Jake Locker (who could be the next Tom Brady for all we know), there is no guarantees that any of the top QBs would want to play for the Panthers in a free market system since they suck so bad. Small market teams who can't shell out big bonuses would be at a disadvantage too for the reasons I explained above.
- Rookie holdouts isn't much of problem. You may get 1-2 a year. In a free market system, some of the first round talent may still not sign until into training camp because no one is giving them the dollars they are looking for.
- As to your comment that the players selecting the teams they want to play for. That directly goes against the parity will remain issue.
- As to the no contract restrictions, you really want to destroy the NFL. So Daniel Snyder can offer Jake Locker a 10 year, $100 million contract with a $40 million signing bonus. How is a small market team going to match that? Sorry, there will have to be rules to what rookies could make in a free market system or the league would turn into the haves and the have nots.

It is a silly premise because the players and the owners know that the Draft is great for both sides and both sides lose without it. The players seem to have pushed Kessler to the side for the Brady et la vs. the NFL based on yesterday. So even they know that the Draft is in their best interest.

 

[Rob0729]

I bet that that auctioning off to the highest bidding team the best players in prime time would produce more viewer interest, and thus more money, than the current format. (It might be better to not call it an "auction" because of the historical associations of that term.)

How in the world would that happen? Run a draft for three months, 24 hours a day? You can't bid multiyear contracts in 5 minutes. Everytime you would win a player, it would take at least hours to figure out how it would affect your cap and what you can afford to spend otherwise. There is a reason why most teams don't sign most of their players until right before camp. There is a lot of negotiations, cap determination, and roster shuffling to accomodate the draftees. It would be a disaster.

Contracts are too complex to have a 5-10 minute bidding war for players. Also, how do you determine the order of the players selected. You obviously wouldn't auction off the hundreds and hundreds of players on TV because auctions for 6th and 7th round quality players would be tedious and unintersting. Where do you make the cut offs.

In theory it might be better, but in reality it would never work.

 

[plk]

Second, the NFL clearly does not have a hard cap.

What? You can move money around from year to year, but eventually it catches up to you. Can you please explain how the NFL does not have a hard cap?

Or better yet, perhaps Miguel would comment.

 

[plk]

How in the world would that happen? Run a draft for three months, 24 hours a day? You can't bid multiyear contracts in 5 minutes. Everytime you would win a player, it would take at least hours to figure out how it would affect your cap and what you can afford to spend otherwise. There is a reason why most teams don't sign most of their players until right before camp. There is a lot of negotiations, cap determination, and roster shuffling to accomodate the draftees. It would be a disaster.

Contracts are too complex to have a 5-10 minute bidding war for players. Also, how do you determine the order of the players selected. You obviously wouldn't auction off the hundreds and hundreds of players on TV because auctions for 6th and 7th round quality players would be tedious and unintersting. Where do you make the cut offs.

In theory it might be better, but in reality it would never work.

It's really very simple. You would have to have a standard contract and teams would bid on the total amount of that contract. (You could change the standard contract after a certain number of players have been selected.)

 

[Rob0729]

What? You can move money around from year to year, but eventually it catches up to you. Can you please explain how the NFL does not have a hard cap?

Or better yet, perhaps Miguel would comment.

First, the cap is adjusted every year team by team. If the cap is say $127 million, the Pats could have an adjusted cap of $132 million or $124 million based on LTBE or NLTBE bonuses acrued the year before. So right there, it doesn't make it a true hard cap.

Second, there are ways to cheat bonuses and salaries to create additional cap space. Certain bonuses are accrued the year that they issued, while others are amortized over the life of a contract. Teams can play with player's cap numbers to either accrue a large portion of their cap number in a single year if they have excess cash or convert salaries to bonuses to create cap room. Teams can give players NLTBE bonuses that are almost guaranteed of being reached where the bonus will not be accrued until the following season to free up cap space in the current football year.

 

[Rob0729]

It's really very simple. You would have to have a standard contract and teams would bid on the total amount of that contract. (You could change the standard contract after a certain number of players have been selected.)

So a free market system without a free market? No restrictions on what you can pay a player only with restrictions? Why bother?

For many of the same reasons, I explained in previous posts this would never work. Teams need to adjust contracts to make it work within their cap. Using a standard contract and bidding on going over that wouldn't work. Even if you bid on total dollars of the contract, a player is going to want to know the breakdown in terms of bonuses, guarantees, and straight salary. That cannot be determined in a 5-10 minute bidding war.

 

[plk]

So a free market system without a free market? No restrictions on what you can pay a player only with restrictions? Why bother?

I believe that it would be very exciting television and bring in a lot more money from advertising than the current format. I would certainly watch it with a lot more interest than I do the current draft format.

For many of the same reasons, I explained in previous posts this would never work. Teams need to adjust contracts to make it work within their cap. Using a standard contract and bidding on going over that wouldn't work. Even if you bid on total dollars of the contract, a player is going to want to know the breakdown in terms of bonuses, guarantees, and straight salary. That cannot be determined in a 5-10 minute bidding war.

The teams would know exactly what contract they're bidding on and how it fits into their salary-cap structure. If the union agrees to the format, it doesn't matter what the new players want. There is nothing that could not be easily worked out.


By the way, your comments on the NFL salary cap are extremely unconvincing.

 

[Rob0729]

I believe that it would be very exciting television and bring in a lot more money from advertising than the current format. I would certainly watch it with a lot more interest than I do the current draft format.

Again, it is your opinion. Reality may be far from it. Employment contracts at this scale are complicated.

Besides, the players wouldn't want this format because they would want to be able to negotiate structure and bonuses. Owners wouldn't want this because they need to work within the confinds of the cap and need to work bonuses to manuever this. Plus many teams cannot get into a bidding war for bonuses. Also, teams would not even know what level of players they would be getting and it would difficult to budget correctly since they will be trying to get anywhere from 5-15 players.

The teams would know exactly what contract they're bidding on and how it fits into their salary-cap structure. If the union agrees to the format, it doesn't matter what the new players want. There is nothing that could not be easily worked out.

First, why would the union agree on a format that would simplify player's contracts that it would make it easy for teams to bid on? That is counterrproductive to the players. The more creative teams can be with bonuses and salary, the more the players have a chance to earn. Simplify it and they lose money.

Second, if there was nothing that couldn't be easily worked out, why are there ever holdouts for rookies? Right now, the owners have more flexibility being able to negotiate over long periods of time and figure out ways to play with money. In the system you propose, there is none of that.

By the way, your comments on the NFL salary cap are extremely unconvincing.

It isn't a true hard cap because there are ways to cheat the money and every team has a different cap #. It is technically a hard cap because there is a cap that teams can't go over, but teams spend over and the cap all the time with creative bonuses. If you aren't convinced about this, sorry. It is a technical hard cap, but not a true one. A true had cap would only allow a team to spend X number of dollars in a given year and not move money around to have it recognized in later years.

So I guess I am wrong that the NFL doesn't have a hard cap per sea, but the reality is that it isn't a true hard cap since there are ways to get around that number.

 

[plk]

So I guess I am wrong that the NFL doesn't have a hard cap per sea, but the reality is that it isn't a true hard cap since there are ways to get around that number.

You can get around the cap number temporarily, but it always catches up with you in later years.

You do understand that? Right?

 

[Rob0729]

You can get around the cap number temporarily, but it always catches up with you in later years.

You do understand that? Right?

Not true. You can cheat the cap forever. You can use NLTBE bonuses in perpetude. It may never catch up to you. You can constantly dole out NLTBE bonuses to compensate for the NLTBE from the previous year and never have it catch up to you.

So if you give out say $2 million in NLTBE bonuses that are easily makeable this year and you do that every year. You just push that cap charge to the next year in perpetude. They only way it would come back to catch up with you is if the CBA comes to an end like last season and the NLTBE bonuses are charged against the cap when the bonus is met.

Therefore it isn't a true hard cap because it doesn't always catch up to you because there are ways to cheat the cap.

You understand that? Right?