Possible Lockout Next Year

[Savage Beatings]

I've been reading more and more about how an NFL lockout next year is all but inevitable now. I have some questions about it it... if anyone has any answers that would be great!

 

I've heard that both sides are posturing and preparing for the lockout, but I have never really read anywhere what the major issues are and what the positions are of each side on those major issues. Can anyone summarize those?

 

Major Issues?

Owners Position?

Players Position?

 

It doesn't sound like either side has made an attempt to begin to negotiate with the other? I guess I don't understand why this is the case? Wouldn't it be best for everyone to actually avoid the lockout? If not, why would it be advantageous to either side to force a lockout instead of trying to work out a deal ahead of time?

 

If there is a lockout next year, will there still be a rookie draft? Which maybe begs another question... if there is a lockout, when would it most likely occur (right after the Superbowl, after the rookie draft, etc.)?

 

Lastly, what happens in terms of paying out contracts during a lockout? Do players still get paid even if the Owners won't allow them to play?

[budlitebrad]

The owners don't want to pay as much to players, when they are the ones fronting money for new stadiums, taking on debt, etc. Currently 60% is going towards players' salaries. The union doesn't want to give any points back and is asking to see the teams' books for transparency, but the owners refuse (except GB, which is publicly owned).

 

The teams will still be earning revenues from existing TV deals, merchandise, etc. and will probably profit more since they won't have salaries to pay out. The union is recommending to players that they stash away at least a quarter of their 2010 salary for the future.

[piratesownninjas]

The owners don't want to pay as much to players, when they are the ones fronting money for new stadiums, taking on debt, etc. Currently 60% is going towards players' salaries. The union doesn't want to give any points back and is asking to see the teams' books for transparency, but the owners refuse (except GB, which is publicly owned).

 

The teams will still be earning revenues from existing TV deals, merchandise, etc. and will probably profit more since they won't have salaries to pay out. The union is recommending to players that they stash away at least a quarter of their 2010 salary for the future.

Goodell said that this wasn't the case.

 

What it boils down to is that the owners want to break the NFLPA and Demaurice Smith wants to play hardball and show the NFLPA that he's just as good for them as was Eugene Upshaw. Personally, I want to see the NFLPA crash and burn.

[Bronco Billy]

Not going to happen.

 

Take away the football context and look at this as a business - which is what this is all about. The owners gave away too large of a chunk to the players when the percentage of gross revenue was pushed up in extending the CBA. That's the pivotal point in the whole issue. The players got their salary cap numbers increased substantially because of the years under the increased percentage, and now it is at a very desirable level.

 

That gives the owners significant leverage now in two ways: 1) The players can afford to back off the percentage of gross revenue since the cap is at a high number, knowing that they won't give any of the acquired cap number back, and 2) The players as always are under a very real constraint of time in regard to their careers. They can't afford to lose a year of being paid at the current salaries with the time/value of money, lose a year off their career year ceiling that has a definite end of which they simply can't recover - they'll never regain that lost money no matter what kind of agreement would be struck under a lockout, not even close.

 

Here's where I see this going: The owners will demand that the percentage of gross revenues dedicated to the players be reduced by about 2%. The players will howl and act offended and militantly posture about being willing to take a one year hit in the lockout. The owners will then offer to the players a reduction in the rookie cap - something the owners desparately want because the top draft picks simply cost way too much given the risk, and which is why high draft picks are virtually untradable. The players kick & scream about it - all the while secretely agreeing completely with it since that doesn't reduce the amount of cap money going to vets, plus it salves the resentment vets have of seeing untried rookies making so damned much more than them - but will finally agree to it while they get additonal benefits tied to franchise tags, etc. The owners can wait out the players - they'll lose revenue from the league but they all have additional income streams that the vast predominance of the players can't even think about matching.

 

It becomes a win-win for the owners and the players. The owners reduce gross revenue percentage given to the players, the players get to make their strong public stand and get some fringe benefits while not losing a bit in cap space dedicated to vets, and both sides are very quietly extremely happy for very different reasons about getting upper eschelon rookie contracts under control.

 

No one kills the golden goose that is NFL football, everyone gets to look like they took a tough stance, and the only losers are the agents and the incoming rookies. The agents don't have any say in the matter since their licensing is controlled by the NFLPA, and the rookies of future years don't have any say in the matter since they don't belong to the NFLPA yet - plus the first rounders salaries and signing bonuses are WAY out of hand and everyone knows it, including we poor dumb-ass schlubs who love watching the game so much, so there will be great fan empathy for the agreement.

 

So, now that the truth has been exposed publicly and everryone knows what the game is and who holds the leverage, the NFL and the NFLPA may as well just concede to having their little game being exposed in regard to how this will shake out, sit down, get this agreement done with without all the posturing and rhetoric, and stop screwing with the greatest pro sports league and one of the most lucrative businesses ever created.

 

You're all welcome.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Bronco Billy

[Jackass]

Goodell said that this wasn't the case.

 

What it boils down to is that the owners want to break the NFLPA and Demaurice Smith wants to play hardball and show the NFLPA that he's just as good for them as was Eugene Upshaw. Personally, I want to see the NFLPA crash and burn.

 

Read somewhere the owners will still be getting paid a considerable amount from their Direct TV contract.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Not going to happen.

 

I'll take Jaworski's side, who thinks there is no way they reach an agreement prior to the start of the season. Neither side budges until the players start missing paychecks, and the owners start missing ticket revenue. Then both come to the table.2-4 games will not be played.

 

Fantasy season's will be in turmoil: payout structures will need to be re-worked, schedules adjusted, playoffs altered. The only good thing is that, with less game, Week 17 will like hold meaning for every team.

[SLAYER]

I'll take Jaworski's side, who thinks there is no way they reach an agreement prior to the start of the season. Neither side budges until the players start missing paychecks, and the owners start missing ticket revenue. Then both come to the table.2-4 games will not be played.

 

Fantasy season's will be in turmoil: payout structures will need to be re-worked, schedules adjusted, playoffs altered. The only good thing is that, with less game, Week 17 will like hold meaning for every team.

 

Of course if Jaws was a Redskin I'm sure you wouldn't be taking his side.

[piratesownninjas]

Read somewhere the owners will still be getting paid a considerable amount from their Direct TV contract.

I've heard Rodger Goodell say several times that they won't get anything from there TV contracts in the event of a lockout. Not sure if that's the Fox/CBS/ESPN deal or the DirecTV deal. A lot of the stuff we're hearing about is mis-information out of the NFLPA.

[Jackass]

Here's an article on the DirectTV deal. Author rightly wonders why DirectTV would agree to do this.

 

League Gets DirecTV Money Even If There's A Lockout

Posted by Mike Florio on March 24, 2009 1:52 PM ET

 

In one of the more amazing developments we've witnessed regarding the ongoing question of whether the NFL and the NFL Players Association will resolve their differences as to a Collective Bargaining Agreement that expires after the 2010 season, the new deal between the NFL and DirecTV guarantees that the league will receive its $1 billion annual revenue for the Sunday Ticket package even if the NFL doesn't play a single game in 2011.

 

The report comes from Peter King of SI.com, who calls the arrangement "lockout insurance."

 

In our view, however, the willingness of DirecTV to commit to the payment represents insurance that a lockout won't occur.

 

If the folks who call the shots at DirecTV have genuinely agreed to fork over a ten-figure payment with no reasonable assurance of getting a return on the investment in 2011, then the company should change its name to "AIG, Jr."

 

The news confirms our suspicion that the CBA cancellation is, in large part, a bluff by the owners, who believe that they have nothing to lose by heading back to the bargaining table and seeking concessions from the players.

 

To preserve their current cut of the total football revenues, we think that the players will be poised to agree to all sorts of things.

 

Eighteen regular season games? Check.

 

One game per team per year on foreign soil or in a neutral site in the U.S.? No problemo.

 

A rookie wage scale limiting the windfalls at the top of the draft? Sure thing.

 

The ability to send a pain-in-the-butt player home with pay? You got it.

 

And the list could go on and on. But, in the end, the NFL likely will strike the best possible deal, and will not lock out the players.

 

There's another reason for the league to pretend to want a work stoppage, and then to avoid one at all costs.

 

Unlike the economic climate surrounding the last labor fight in 1987, multiple NFL teams have significant amounts of debt, primarily due to the privately-funded portions of newer stadiums. Those payments will still come due, with or without games being played in the properties that still need to be paid off.

 

Though the DirecTV money could go a long way toward satisfying the debts in the event of a lockout, we still remain convinced that there's no way DirecTV agreed to this provision without some idea that there won't be a lockout -- or without some way to make the money up pursuant to the more technical and convoluted (and as of yet unreported) portions of the contract.

 

That said, we think the league will posture the DirecTV commitment as a strike fund that will ensure a stream of revenue for the league at a time when the players will have to divvy up a much smaller pile of money that they have been hoarding like undersized acorns in the event of a work stoppage.

 

Look at it this way. The union's strike fund was estimated to be at $128 million as of 2008. In 2009, the minimum expenditure on player salaries, based on a salary floor of $111 million per team, will be more than $3.55 billion.

 

Thus, the strike fund represents 3.6 percent of the total minimum player wages to be paid out in 2009.

 

And that's without the $28 million verdict that might eventually be paid to the class of retired players who sued the union for failure to properly market their names and likenesses.

 

So, yeah, even if the DirecTV money for 2011 is secretly offset by a reduction in payments to be made in future years, and even if the league has promised the DirecTV execs on a wink-nod basis that there won't be a lockout, the players will soon realize that their preparations for war entail tying knives to the end of broom handles, while the league is rolling out a brand-new fleet of tanks.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Jackass

[Big John]

Author rightly wonders why DirectTV would agree to do this.

As a condition of retaining exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket?

[Bronco Billy]

I'll take Jaworski's side, who thinks there is no way they reach an agreement prior to the start of the season. Neither side budges until the players start missing paychecks, and the owners start missing ticket revenue. Then both come to the table.2-4 games will not be played.

 

 

I don't understand why everyone doesn't think like me.

[Cunning Runt]

As a condition of retaining exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket?

 

Seems like it to me too.