View Full Version : Football's Future If the Players Win

04-26-2011, 07:16 AM
Football's Future If the Players Win
There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams. (And I would stop watching football because the Steelers and other small market teams would die. - mesa)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#printMode

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.
Getty Images

Small-market teams like the Buffalo Bills 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.

04-26-2011, 06:56 PM
Goodell plays us for fools in letter to WSJ
By Gregg Doyel
CBSSports.com National Columnist
April 26, 2011Tell Gregg your opinion!

Roger Goodell gave all of us a glimpse into his negotiating tactics on Tuesday, and it wasn't good. Not for the players or owners. Not for the 2011 NFL season. Most of all, not for Roger Goodell.

Because that letter to the Wall Street Journal? This letter right here? It's ugly, Commissioner. It's ugly and misleading and, in the way that the truth can sometimes be a lie, it's a lie.

Confused? Blame Goodell, who just had nearly 1,100 words published in a major daily newspaper yet didn't clear anything up. All he did was muddy the waters. Instead of lifting the level of discourse in this conversation, Goodell sent it toppling from the gutter, where it already was, to whatever level lies beneath the gutter. Hades, I suppose. That's where Goodell sent these negotiations with his letter to the Wall Street Journal. He sent them to hell.

Have you read it yet? If not, click that link and then come back here, because you can't possibly know how bad things are if you don't know how awful that letter is. What Goodell did in that letter was use the union's words against the union, which isn't necessarily a dirty tactic -- but it is in this case, because he's using the union's words against the union ... when he knows full well that those words aren't realistic in the first place.

I know, I know. Still confusing. Let's use an analogy that most folks can relate to. Imagine you're at a used-car lot, and not one of those haggle-free car lots but the kind of lot where you go back and forth with the salesman. On this lot, you walk up to a dented 2004 Honda Civic with 87,000 miles, and it's listed at $13,000.

You know that car isn't really going to sell for $13,000. The dealer knows it's not selling for $13,000. That's just a starting point, because there has to be a starting point somewhere. And who knows? Maybe some misguided fool will stumble onto the lot with $13,000 in his pocket and a hankering for a dented 2004 Honda Civic. Crazier things have happened. Point is, that sticker price is a joke, and both sides know it.

Not Goodell. No, if Goodell walked onto that lot looking for a car, he'd take one look at the sticker price and write a scathing letter to the Wall Street Journal, railing about the audacity of a used-car lot that is charging -- not asking, but charging -- $13,000 for a dented 2004 Honda Civic.

That's what Goodell did with that letter to the Journal. He took the players' sticker price -- their pie-in-the-sky starting point -- and presented it to the public as Example A of the union's insane greed.

And let's be honest. If the union really was sticking to all that stuff -- not starting with it; I said "sticking" to it -- the union would be greedy. And the union would be insane. Because the NFL isn't going to operate without a draft, a drug-testing policy, a salary cap, a minimum salary, a minimum team payroll and league-wide standard of benefits. The union might well be seeking some of that, in some form, but the union isn't seeking all of that. Or anything close to all of that. The union doesn't look at Goodell as a misguided fool with $13,000 in his pocket and a hankering for a dented 2004 Honda Civic.

And Goodell knows it. He has to. You don't get where he has gone -- commissioner of the most popular sports league in this country -- by being naďve or stupid or both. And yet Goodell played the naďve, stupid card from the beginning of his letter to the Journal, which warned that the NFL was headed for a brave new world that would "significantly alter professional football as we know it."

When we're not.

You know it. I know it. Most of all, Roger Goodell knows it. He knows it better than anyone. But instead he took the players' opening position -- their wish list, their starting point, their first bargaining position -- and presented it to all of you as the union's line in the sand.

I don't know about you, but that ticks me off. Because Goodell wasn't simply presenting that letter to the Wall Street Journal. He wasn't presenting it only to you -- he was presenting it to me as well. I read it. Nearly swallowed my tongue a few times, but I read it. And when I was done, the following thought occurred to me, and I mean it occurred to me in a split-second:

Roger Goodell must think I'm an idiot.

Then something else occurred to me: This must be how Goodell negotiates with the players, too. He exaggerates, pontificates, plays the martyr. He does all of that, presumably, with the assumption that the other side is populated by idiots.

When they're not. Sorry, we're not. Because if this is how Roger Goodell negotiates, count me as a member of the other side.

Atlanta Dan
04-26-2011, 08:13 PM
Time for Roger Goodell to cut his losses
By Gene Wojciechowski

As the face of the league, Goodell reaches out in very human ways. The $1 salary announcement. The meet-and-greets with NFL fans. The conference calls with season-ticket holders. Very nice.

But his latest propaganda effort is as smooth as driveway gravel. It comes in the form of an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about the latest lockout developments, and it feels more calculated than sincere. It feels spinny.

First of all, if I want to plead my case to America's football public, the Wall Street Journal might not have been my first choice. It's a great place to read about the Federal Reserve's inflation paradox, offshore subsidiaries and the Asia markets. But I don't think its subscriber base includes many members of, say, the Cleveland Browns' Dawg Pound or the Washington Redskins' Hogettes.

Then again, maybe that was the point. Perhaps Goodell was pleading his case to corporate America, not football America. If so, it was another in a conga line of miscalculations by NFL management.


The one good thing about this labor mess is that the owners strategy which Goodell has mismanaged has been so completely botched that I bet he gets canned within the next year