NFL owners could opt out of CBA with union as early as Tuesday

[TaborJet]

Friday, May 16, 2008

NFL owners could opt out of CBA with union as early as Tuesday

By Chris Mortensen

ESPN.com

NFL owners might opt out of the existing labor agreement as soon as Tuesday when they hold their next meetings in Atlanta, according to league sources.

One management source called it a "high likelihood" that the owners will exercise their option to terminate the agreement, which will trigger a number of alternatives, including a potential work stoppage by 2011. Another source said "be prepared" for the action, although it was "not a 100 percent proposition yet."

An NFL Players Association source said, "We expect it to happen."

A league spokesman said the NFL had no comment.

The decision to exercise the option is not expected to have any significant impact on the next two seasons, 2008 and 2009.

However, by opting out of the agreement that was struck on March 9, 2006, the NFL would play 2010 without a salary cap, unrestricted free agency for players would be increased from four years to six years and the orderly selection of college players in the annual draft would not exist after 2011. These "poison pills" are designed to motivate both the owners and the union to work toward a new collective bargaining agreement.

When the current CBA was agreed upon amid much acrimony between high- and low-revenue clubs, the deal included options for both the owners and players' union to terminate the terms early in either 2008 or 2009. The deadline for opting out this year is Nov. 8 but league sources say many owners want to pull the trigger now.

Three owners contacted by ESPN.com declined to comment, with one joking, "The fine is so high for speaking a word about this that you would have to buy my children's shoes."

The players' association will not be caught off guard by an early opt out.

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had his first official meeting with NFL management leaders two weeks ago as a "feeling out" session. Upshaw made it clear to league officials that the union is not about to "give back" what it has gained in collective bargaining.

During the NFLPA's annual meeting in mid-March, much of the union's agenda was spent discussing the options of a looming labor battle. Upshaw warned of the possibility of an owners' lockout in 2011.

The NFL has not had a work stoppage since 1987, when an ill-fated union strike resulted in three regular-season games being played by "replacement players" before the union broke ranks.

Upshaw took over as the NFLPA executive director and decertified the union, which led to an anti-trust lawsuit that the players won in federal court. That ultimately led to the breakthrough 1993 labor agreement which led to unrestricted free agency for players and a salary cap.

Upshaw has told his player ranks that decertification is again a possibility, along with other options, although the union is not inclined to strike because football careers are relatively brief.

[Sperm Edwards]

As the article states, this would only be news on paper. It was pretty well known for some time that a new CBA needs to be reached or the current one would expire prior to the 2010 season.

Does anyone know the list of grievances on both sides? The ones I think are likely are:

Between players and owners: players want a higher salary cap so it is a bigger percentage of revenue.

Low-profit/low-revenue teams want to make it lower than current levels so they don't end up being forced into the red by a minimum payroll.

High-profit/high-revenue teams want to make it as high or higher than current levels since they can afford it.

Between high-profit and low-profit teams:

Low-profit/revenue team owners want bigger revenue sharing among them. Their working capital would go up and the dollar value of their individual franchises would go up.

High-profit/revenue team owners have a commodity that is more valuable than others because of greater profit/revenue. More sharing means less money for something they paid top-dollar for; and further, this commodity then loses some of its value.

Teams that have paid for and negotiated new stadium deals don't just want to give that away to teams that have not (or have not been able to due to their location).

Anyone who can chime in on this please do.

[Lil Bit Special]

the two biggest issues I see from the owners is:

1. 59% of "defined" gross revenues goes to players.

The owners would love to lower this to 50%, which they wont get.

2. top 15 revenue teams contribute more to the money pool.

According to the news reports from 2006, the top 15 teams had to contribute more

money. So Im sure some of these high revenue teams arent happy they have to pay more.

Plus, the owners are claiming that they are losing money with this CBA.

http://www.nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=1083

We met with NFL negotiators last Thursday in New York. Attendees included owners Jerry Richardson and Pat Bowlen, the League

[Sperm Edwards]

Well "lose" money is dependent upon how you look at it. To most people, a team that is "losing" money means they are paying out more than they're taking in. In this case, I'd wager they're using the term to connote that to the public, when in actuality it just means they're not making as much profit as they were (or as much as they'd like).

But it's irrelevant to an extent. The players weren't going to go along with continuing the prior CBA. So they're idea of "losing" money would only be accurate if it was a forgone conclusion that they would be able to proceed as they had been. This is not the case.

Unprofitable teams (or those that call themselves unprofitable, like the Bills I think do) should move someplace profitable. If the league can survive moving 2 teams away from Los Angeles, it can survive moving one team away from Buffalo, NY. Let them go someplace that has a fanbase that is willing to sell out a stadium, and a city/state that is willing to cough up enough $ to make the owner happy. It is childish to complain that they're not drawing enough revenue in their market and also refuse to move the team from that market, claiming it is the burden of the other owners to make up for the fiscal irresponsibility of a few.

L.A. is an option, if the city is ever willing to offer a stadium other than that friggin' Coliseum sh**hole. Maybe a $500M+ revamping of the Rose Bowl like they were talking about some years ago. I'm sure there are other places as well. San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Portland, Norfolk, Birmingham, Boise, Wichita, Louisville, etc.

I'm not advocating (or even aware of the feasibility of) any of those locations. But there are other places to go if the current population isn't supporting the team.

The NFL generates more than enough revenue outside of individual team stadium deals for all the owners to rake in a killing.