Football's Future If the Players Win by Roger Goodell

[Quesadilla Joe]

There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams.

Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.

For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.

For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.

Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.

Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.

In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.

Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.

In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.

Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...526726626.html

[Bump]

with Tagliabue, you didn't know what you had until it's now gone.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by philfree

I see nothing wrong with the Goodells statement. I'm not really a Goodell fan either.

So if the NFL goes total free agent will there be roster limits or will teams be able to sign as many players as they want? If that's the case the richest owners will buy up all the talent living the other teams with all the scrubs. And those guys won't make jack.

PhilFree

I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article, in terms of the labor issues that could arise.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money. They didn't have the guts to make the tough decisions among themselves and settle the disagreements between the big and small market owners about how revenue should be shared. The small market owners were complaining 5 minutes after they signed the last CBA (that's almost not an exaggeration).

So instead of hashing it out, they went after part of the players' share of the money. They figured they'd run over them in both directions and get the extra money that way.

Instead, it blew up in their face, at least to this point... and now they're stuck with the pandora's box they opened. Goodell says it himself in the article... the players were fine with the status quo. That's the most unbelievable part of the article... he's leaning on the players argument that would've avoided the whole thing in the first place. That is some grade A hypocrisy.

[Dave Lane]

There is a whole lot of sense being made in this thread, and frankly it surprises me. **** Goodell and the owners for being douchenoozles. IF they had gone for something that made sense like dumping the rookie salary cap and doing something good with it, they would have a compliant group in the players agreeing with them.

Instead they knew they were going to lock the players out based on the TV deal they signed, threw a contract on the table 2 hours before they knew the players would de-certify and then whined when they didn't take it.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by tk13

I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money. They didn't have the guts to make the tough decisions among themselves and settle the disagreements between the big and small market owners about how revenue should be shared. The small market owners were complaining 5 minutes after they signed the last CBA (that's almost not an exaggeration).

So instead of hashing it out, they went after part of the players' share of the money. They figured they'd run over them in both directions and get the extra money that way.

Instead, it blew up in their face, at least to this point... and now they're stuck with the pandora's box they opened. Goodell says it himself in the article... the players were fine with the status quo.

I don't think the owners would have signed the last CBA without the opt out clause because they weren't that comfortable with the deal. The players signed a CBA that gave the owners an opt out and if they thought that the owners wouldn't opt out at the 1st chance then they weren't thinking very well. I believe the players at that time new they would sue if the owners excersized their option. This whole mess was predestined since 2006. The owners shouldn't have ever signed that CBA. That was the screw up. The owners gave up more then they were comfortable with and if they thought the players would ever give back any ground they weren't thinking very clearly.

the players were fine with the status quo

That says the players know they got a sweet deal and got one over on the owners. I'd still like to see what the players want in a new CBA. I've never seen or heard a word about what they'd want in a new CBA. That tells me that they never really negotiated. If they had they would have put something on the table.


PhilFree

[Dave Lane]

OK I take part of my statement back.

[Psyko Tek]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The funny thing is that while this sounds bad it actually may not end up quite so bad. In this short term if this were to play out I would expect the smaller market teams to then recruit and develop the HS level talent. No CBA also means no minimum age which means the teams most desperate for talent can cherry pick the potential, but unpolished HS athletes. Put them on an NFL training program with judicious use of chemicals and they would develop physically quite quickly. Very high risk but somewhat high rewards too. Also no contract lengths so those you hit you could keep for a 10 year initial contract.

The bigger programs will lure the elite HS talent but the good to midrange should still be available for the mid sized NFL teams. Scouting HS talent becomes almost as important if not more so than the draft today.

you got some serrious stupid going there
HS plasyers as a farm team?
really

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Exactly. The NFL made a reeruned gamble because they wanted an extra $600MM out of over 10 billion. Thats all this was about, just a measly 600 little million out of billions and billions. The players had a very good reason, based on prior lawsuits, to believe they were on solid legal ground if the NFL became unreasonable.

For that, Goodell and the reeruned owners prodding him forth were willing to risk the draft, roster limits, salary caps, player control, EVERYTHING, for just another little 600 million. Why? Because for some reeruned reason they thought the courts would rule in their favor. They were willing to gamble everything for that.

Well, NFL you were wrong, and you just screwed this up big-time. At this point, you probably need to go back to the player's union and BEG to go back to the old CBA.

Shut it down

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Psyko Tek

you got some serrious stupid going there
HS plasyers as a farm team?
really

Well if I have some stupids god help what you have. How hard is it to realize that with CBA and no age limit there will be no quality athletes at the college level. The notion of not being 'physically ready' is complete bullshit. They are only not physically ready because they don't have access to the same nutrition/training experience in that they have in college. Physically most of them have stopped growing etc(but there are always a few exceptions). If they have the capability to go pro post or even during high school they will join independent programs and become physically 'ready' sooner. Much like you have kids playing AAU ball pre-college for NBA level competition. For instance the NBA instituting the 1 year out of college rule had nothing to do with physical characteristics.

stating that he wanted the league's scouts and general managers out of high school gyms and that too many young urban Americans incorrectly saw the NBA as a sure path to fame and financial security.

Remove the classes from school and they'd have plenty of time to dedicate. Would they? Well that's part of the scouting program. It would be the only way that the small teams would have a chance to compete. Take the really raw talent out of HS, sign him to a 7-10 year contract and spend 1-2 years getting them football ready.

Without the 3 years out of HS rule there would be no reason for most of those good to great athletes to even head to college. Better to get on a NFL training program and be ready to play/get paid sooner. It would likely be a hybrid between the NBA/MLB systems. You'd have people being signed for raw talent and then developed, rather than having more polished players come out of college. It's a huge risk that they would develop but that's why the small teams would have to do it, because they'd have no shot for a player that's developed and proved they can play. Only those that have potential but have proved very little. The ultimate developmental projects. With a really quality scouting system it could work to make the smaller teams competitive. But considering they can poach the scouting too it's not clear how long it would enable them to stay competitive.

[HMc]

Originally Posted by tk13

I'm not sure anyone would argue the content of the article, in terms of the labor issues that could arise.

But the fact is, the owners started this. They opted out of the CBA because they wanted to make more money.

Well, the players agreed to the inclusion of the opt-out term, didn't they? And for that, they got something in return (the process of negotiation).

It should have been well within the contemplation of the players that the owners may opt out.

This has lasted longer than I thought it would. I still think they'll get a deal done before opening day. Really though, complete free agency and no restraints of trade is really the only way to settle these arguments using the "market"

[HMc]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Instead they knew they were going to lock the players out based on the TV deal they signed, threw a contract on the table 2 hours before they knew the players would de-certify and then whined when they didn't take it.

People don't purchase auto insurance because they know they'll have an accident. It's a transfer of risk. It makes sense include the same protection in a TV deal. It's not particularly compelling evidence that the owners knew there would be a lockout.

[Direckshun]

Alnorth is torching this thread.

[ChiefsCountry]

I don't see why the owners should open their books to their employees. Why should any private business be forced to do that? I have no problem the players wanting more money but the owners have a right to set what profit they want to make.

[kcxiv]

Godell is just pissed because this epic **** up is happening on his watch. I used to like him, but lately its making it harder and harder. He's turning into a big ole jackass.

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

I don't see why the owners should open their books to their employees. Why should any private business be forced to do that? I have no problem the players wanting more money but the owners have a right to set what profit they want to make.

The owners shouldnt, but the Players also have every right to ask for it. They can speak their mind. Its just one big ass tug of war right now.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by kcxiv

The owners shouldnt, but the Players also have every right to ask for it. They can speak their mind. Its just one big ass tug of war right now.

Yes they should. It's called bargaining in good faith.