Judge grants preliminary injunction....

[Brent]

Everything I've heard from the owners side is that they intend to increase minimum salaries. Whether that's a real increase, as in, as a percentage or whether that's simply because revenues are increasing so they're bound to go up, even if less so than they would have had the old CBA remained in place, I don't know. But the minimum salary, both for vets and rookies will increase.

 

And, again, they can't not spend money on players. Whatever the final number will be, it will almost certainly look much like what it does now, where the owners scoop some money off the top and split the rest with the players. Whatever that cut the players is, it is, and the teams have no choice but to pay it to them some how.

 

You still dont get it, what you have heard and what we see are two completely different things. What country do you live in. In this country the middle class is disappearing everyday, and this is exactly what the NFL wants. To pay its lowest paid players more aka rookies outside of round 1 and 2, and minimum for vets, pay the highest slightly more or the same, and slash the middle class completely. Sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of arguing. If salaries change like the owners want, do you think we will see huge bonus money given out and trying to lower the cap hit in first couple of years of the contract, no, they will just pay that year, and get to the floor that way. the owners want a hard cap, and get rid of the work around with huge bonus money spread out over the contract, as the player can simply be cut when he is no use to them anymore, and wont have huge cap hits, etc. Also bonus money which is huge every year from the owners pocket, will be reduced considerably. The Cap and rookie salary is the biggest thing for the owners. Plus they want 1.75 to 2 billion off the top. Basically they want their cake and eat it too, and they are certainly trying to get it still.

[WaterMan]

Commie judge #1 and #2 had me rolling.

[detlef]

I"m talking about coming up with 32 "owners." How are the players going to decide who those guys are? And the players will be happy with their decisions? No chance. None.

 

How often do you vote on those stocks? Mine go in the garbage.

Again, I've made it pretty clear that I don't think this would be some easy thing to pull off and that the players could just go and do this. I always get caught up in this because I feel that people fixate on the wrong things, like thinking dudes are going to jog in off the practice field and then change into a suit and crunch numbers.

 

None the less, they don't need 32 "owners" any more than a publicly traded chain store needs an owner for each store. They need 32 GMs, just like we have right now. And 32 batches of other executives just like we have right now. And they'd need a commish, just like they have right now. Those are all very important positions to the NFL, almost none of which is manned by an owner. And, from what you hear, the smartest owners are the ones who get the hell out of the way and let those guys do their thing.

 

Now, I'm not an accountant or a lawyer, so I don't know exactly how it could work. But, again, having the players collectively own it and hiring out all the management positions just like the current batch of owners do, and having a congress of elected players to meet semi-annually in the same capacity the owners do, seems reasonably realistic. At least, once the barriers of entry are jumped, and that, frankly, is why I don't think it would work. Not because players are stupid because the vast majority of them would have exactly as much to do with running the league as they do now. Basically none.

 

Again, I really don't want to go much further down the path of defending something that I ultimately don't think is nearly as good an idea for the players as making their current situation work for them. I just think that people are looking at the wrong details.

[piratesownninjas]

These players can be replaced, it happens every year, and quite frankly if the NFL started over from scratch with college players and started a CBA stating the highest salary in the league is a million a year, do you think a single college kid would turn that down vs the alternative of getting a real job. Hell no they wouldnt. For the players to act as if they are the product, I simply say, lets replace the product with a younger cheaper product and start over. If players want to continue to play football, they can go to canada, or sign a new contract for 1 million a year. Their choice. This happens in business every day, people who make the most get laid off the fastest in most cases, when companies are trying to reduce expenses The Owners are trying to do the same thing. Can out of work employees sue their former employer for out sourcing their job. And why are we not spending tax payer dollars going after these corporations who send our jobs overseas, instead of worrying about making these millionaire players richer. IM not saying the owners are blameless, they raise ticket prices and the cost of beer and parking is out of control.

They can be replaced, but not in a single year. You couldn't have this draft class and scabs and expect anything. They'd be in breach of contract in the TV deal they signed. I dont think you can replace the product of Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers with Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbart and expect it to resemble NFL.

And we have to remember that the players didn't opt out of the deal that was signed by both sides. DeMaurice Smith is hurting the situation, but I don't think the players as a whole are in the wrong. And what happens in business every day doesn't apply to them. There are a ton of insurance sales reps, Booze peddlers and dentist... We can all easily be replaced with someone of equal or greater skill, but you're not going to find some guy that is going to go in and make anyone forget about Manning. The quality of the league would drop, as would ratings, and Fox and CBS won't let that happen.

You're getting into another topic all together with going after corporations outsourcing jobs. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the Antitrust suit is what it is.

[Brent]

They can be replaced, but not in a single year. You couldn't have this draft class and scabs and expect anything. They'd be in breach of contract in the TV deal they signed. I dont think you can replace the product of Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers with Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbart and expect it to resemble NFL.

And we have to remember that the players didn't opt out of the deal that was signed by both sides. DeMaurice Smith is hurting the situation, but I don't think the players as a whole are in the wrong. And what happens in business every day doesn't apply to them. There are a ton of insurance sales reps, Booze peddlers and dentist... We can all easily be replaced with someone of equal or greater skill, but you're not going to find some guy that is going to go in and make anyone forget about Manning. The quality of the league would drop, as would ratings, and Fox and CBS won't let that happen.

You're getting into another topic all together with going after corporations outsourcing jobs. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the Antitrust suit is what it is.

 

 

IMO the best football on the planet is college football, and those teams change every 3 years or so. I think it would be much easier to extend college football to the NFL, than any of these wild ideas about players starting their own league. When you watch the BCS National championship this year, or the year Texas played USC, those games were more entertaining than most Superbowls I have watched the last 30 years. Hell more fans pack stadiums at the University of Tennessee and Michigan, every week, than have ever watched an NFL game in person on American soil. And it doesnt matter if Michigan is 3-6, the Big House is packed, unlike the NFL. And the cost of tickets are not that much different either. If the Union really decertified, Id just say, when contracts are complete, you are done here, unless you resign for the league max of 1 million per year. And these guys graduate to the pasture if they dont like it, and NFL teams extend the draft back to 15 rounds a year to fill in talent lost. Now is any of this going to happen, Hell NO. But it isnt as far fetched as many want to make it either. The NFL is a monopoly, and as jerry jones all but said in front of a camera to players in a meeting, you guys just dont get what we are trying to tell you.

[detlef]

IMO the best football on the planet is college football, and those teams change every 3 years or so. I think it would be much easier to extend college football to the NFL, than any of these wild ideas about players starting their own league. When you watch the BCS National championship this year, or the year Texas played USC, those games were more entertaining than most Superbowls I have watched the last 30 years. Hell more fans pack stadiums at the University of Tennessee and Michigan, every week, than have ever watched an NFL game in person on American soil. And it doesnt matter if Michigan is 3-6, the Big House is packed, unlike the NFL. And the cost of tickets are not that much different either. If the Union really decertified, Id just say, when contracts are complete, you are done here, unless you resign for the league max of 1 million per year. And these guys graduate to the pasture if they dont like it, and NFL teams extend the draft back to 15 rounds a year to fill in talent lost. Now is any of this going to happen, Hell NO. But it isnt as far fetched as many want to make it either. The NFL is a monopoly, and as jerry jones all but said in front of a camera to players in a meeting, you guys just dont get what we are trying to tell you.

We hold college football players to a different standard and there's a sort of charm in the flaws. A sloppily played college game is considered gutty and passionate, with each team giving their all. A sloppily played pro game is bad entertainment. It's the same with hoops. If an NBA is shooting 60% the field, he's a chump that needs to get to work. If the center on your college team shoots 50% "Oh, yeah, he can't shoot FTs for crap, but he's working on it and he's a total glue guy"

 

So I don't know if saying, because college football is so popular, an inferior pro game would be. And it would be inferior.

 

That said, if the owners started brand new, eventually they'd have a fine enough product, but they'd lose money along the way. Networks would demand a much lower contract and gate sales would be down initially. Hell, look at the polls, 2/3s of the fans are on the side of the players. Eventually they'd forget, but it wouldn't be overnight.

 

I think both sides could technically get along without the other, but both sides would be far better off just continuing to do business with the other. Both are getting crazy rich right now so either side would be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they tried to go out on their own. And if both did, it would be even worse.

[Pope Flick]

They can be replaced, but not in a single year. You couldn't have this draft class and scabs and expect anything. They'd be in breach of contract in the TV deal they signed. I dont think you can replace the product of Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers with Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbart and expect it to resemble NFL.

 

 

You destroy the NFL product: the 'insitutional memory' of the league would be gone and the new guys wouldn't have to bust ass to take on Ray Lewis. It'd be like a bunch of AAAA ballplayers - good to great in college but not quite good enough to make it in the pros, only they would all make it at first.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Pope Flick

[BearBroncos]

IMO the best football on the planet is college football, and those teams change every 3 years or so. I think it would be much easier to extend college football to the NFL, than any of these wild ideas about players starting their own league. When you watch the BCS National championship this year, or the year Texas played USC, those games were more entertaining than most Superbowls I have watched the last 30 years. Hell more fans pack stadiums at the University of Tennessee and Michigan, every week, than have ever watched an NFL game in person on American soil. And it doesnt matter if Michigan is 3-6, the Big House is packed, unlike the NFL. And the cost of tickets are not that much different either. If the Union really decertified, Id just say, when contracts are complete, you are done here, unless you resign for the league max of 1 million per year. And these guys graduate to the pasture if they dont like it, and NFL teams extend the draft back to 15 rounds a year to fill in talent lost. Now is any of this going to happen, Hell NO. But it isnt as far fetched as many want to make it either. The NFL is a monopoly, and as jerry jones all but said in front of a camera to players in a meeting, you guys just dont get what we are trying to tell you.

 

I love college football, but for what it is. It's not professional and it shows. RB's who break 70 yard runs week in and out isn't necessarily because they are huge mega stars but could be a product of the team they are playing have some serious sub-par tackling. The premise is that you will see this several weeks a year in college because higher end schools have to play smaller collegiate schools who don't have the recruiting ability for athletes or coaching.

 

Professional football is the next level. Were the cream of the crop play against each other. You have the best corners (hopefully) playing against the best receivers. The best tackles playing against the best guards etc.

 

Sure, some of the product you scratch your head on, but profession football is night and day compared to the collegiate ball. A dropped ball in college can be excused off. 50% completion is at times considered good when you have a QB that rushes for 2,000 yards. You just can't compare the 2 in talent and entertainment. Not dogging college here what so ever. Some people prefer college as their entertainment and that's fine but the level of entertainment is hard to compare against the pro's.

[Seahawks21]

IMO the best football on the planet is college football, and those teams change every 3 years or so. I think it would be much easier to extend college football to the NFL, than any of these wild ideas about players starting their own league. When you watch the BCS National championship this year, or the year Texas played USC, those games were more entertaining than most Superbowls I have watched the last 30 years. Hell more fans pack stadiums at the University of Tennessee and Michigan, every week, than have ever watched an NFL game in person on American soil. And it doesnt matter if Michigan is 3-6, the Big House is packed, unlike the NFL. And the cost of tickets are not that much different either. If the Union really decertified, Id just say, when contracts are complete, you are done here, unless you resign for the league max of 1 million per year. And these guys graduate to the pasture if they dont like it, and NFL teams extend the draft back to 15 rounds a year to fill in talent lost. Now is any of this going to happen, Hell NO. But it isnt as far fetched as many want to make it either. The NFL is a monopoly, and as jerry jones all but said in front of a camera to players in a meeting, you guys just dont get what we are trying to tell you.

So far you've tried to compare the NFL to small businesses, you've compared yourself to an NFL owner, compared NFL players to products you buy in the grocery store and now tried to compare the NFL to college athletics. Can't wait to see the next perfectly logical analogy.

 

You're on record saying that the NFL would survive without it's players. That alone is enough to tell us all we need to know about the level of genius we're working with.

[detlef]

So far you've tried to compare the NFL to small businesses, you've compared yourself to an NFL owner, compared NFL players to products you buy in the grocery store and now tried to compare the NFL to college athletics. Can't wait to see the next perfectly logical analogy.

 

You're on record saying that the NFL would survive without it's players. That alone is enough to tell us all we need to know about the level of genius we're working with.

Don't forget pointing to moral victories like the Pacers being down 1-3 (ultimately losing the series 4-1) to the Bulls but "really should have been" up 3-1 as an example of NBA parity.

[WaterMan]

NFL Owners acting like they are above the law.

 

NFL owners act like they’re above the law

 

By Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports

 

 

Let me start by stating the obvious: In the world in which I live, if I'm driving down the street and I see some red, flashing lights in my rearview mirror, I pull over to the side of the road.

 

 

If an officer approaches my car, tells me I was speeding and begins writing me a ticket, I don't roll my eyes and say, “Whatever, I don't recognize the validity of your radar devices or even acknowledge that you have jurisdiction.”

 

More From Michael SilverRuling provides players immediate benefits Apr 26, 2011 Scout takes pride in 'rogue' label Apr 24, 2011

And when I see the print on the ticket advising me that I must pay or appear before a judge to plead my case, I don’t turn it into a paper airplane, throw it back at the officer and gloat, “I'm just going to get this overturned on appeal.”

 

 

I live in this charming New World democracy called the United States of America, where we have a relatively enlightened legal system and a process for punishing those who blatantly disobey or disregard the laws of the land. I may not agree with every law on the books, but I am obligated to respect those laws and the people who enforce them, and I try to teach my children to do the same.

 

 

Right now, I'm having a hard time explaining to my kids what the hell the NFL owners are doing, and why they seem to feel emboldened to ignore a direct order from a federal judge.

 

 

I know the NFL is a big deal to many of you, and the league sometimes seems to operate as if it is its own, all-powerful entity. However, the degree to which a large portion of the public – and, more troubling, a high percentage of people in my business – is shrugging at the owners'’ behavior since U.S. District Court Judge Susan Nelson's order lifting the lockout came down Monday afternoon blows my mind.

 

 

Judge Nelson's 89-page ruling didn’t specifically outline an immediate timetable for the resumption of free agency, trades and normal offseason activities, but it was hardly ambiguous. Four words at the bottom of the ruling – “the lockout is enjoined” – made it abundantly clear what she was decreeing.

 

 

Nelson ruled that, in the wake of the NFL Players Association’s decision to decertify, the owners were not allowed to prevent their employees from coming to work while the Brady et al antitrust lawsuit plays out in her court. She concluded in her decision to grant the players'’ injunction that they would face “irreparable harm” under such a scenario and that they had a “fair chance of prevailing” at trial.

 

The NFL reacted by saying it would “seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,” which was certainly within its legal rights. The rest of the league’s behavior, however, has ranged from absurdly arrogant to outright criminal.

 

 

In an email to profootballtalk.com, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said, “We do not intend to start the league year until we have had an opportunity to seek a stay.” Loosely translated: We don't like your decision, and we're going to do our best to ignore it until we get some legal relief.

 

 

 

On Tuesday, Giants lineman Chris Canty was allowed to work out in the team's facilities. Management changed its mind Wednesday.

 

Wow. I realize that the owners are rich, powerful people, and some of them are poor losers, but that's a pretty bold reaction to a clear-cut legal beatdown.

 

 

On Tuesday morning, various NFL players across the country exercised their legal rights by showing up at their respective team facilities and reporting for offseason workouts. Most were allowed to enter but were denied access to the weight room and other areas. Many teams kept coaches and front-office employees away from the players' – continuing a lockout-imposed edict from ownership – and strength and conditioning coaches were made scarce as well. The Giants allowed defensive lineman Chris Canty(notes) to work out Tuesday but changed their mind and closed the weight room on Wednesday.

 

 

One team, the Seattle Seahawks, reportedly had the gall to deny players access to the building entirely. In other words, the players were locked out.

 

It seems pretty obvious that the Seahawks were in contempt of court. I'm not saying Judge Nelson will necessarily respond by issuing an order for owner Paul Allen's arrest, but I have a pretty strong suspicion she won't react kindly to such behavior. And the image of an ultra-wealthy owner in handcuffs would go a long way toward illustrating a basic tenet of our democracy.

 

 

When parties flout court orders and show a complete disrespect for the legal system, judges are not amused. Often, they bring down their gavels and remind the offenders of the force of those laws in a very punitive and non-subtle way. I have a feeling Her Honor is already aware that the court's authority has been disregarded, and the Seahawks – and the NFL in general – may be in for a harsh reality check.

 

 

I believe a legitimate argument can be made that, unless and until a stay is granted, any team that doesn’t allow its players to conduct business as usual is in contempt of Judge Nelson's order. While the NFL will contend that it has a right to delay the start of the “league year” further into the offseason, I think it’s pretty obvious that Judge Nelson’s ruling called for an immediate end to the lockout and the “irreparable harm” it was causing to the players who requested the injunction.

 

 

Without the official beginning of the league year, there can be no trades, free-agent signings or roster bonuses. Players are also being denied workout bonuses, though anyone who has showed up at team facilities the past two days and been denied access to the weight room should have a very strong case for recovering that money eventually. This is why, on Tuesday, the players requested that Nelson declare an immediate start to the league year, and the way the owners have behaved in the interim can't be hurting the players’ chances of succeeding.

 

 

When Judge Nelson “enjoined” the lockout, I believe she was calling for a return to the state of affairs that existed before March 12, when the owners imposed the conditions that provoked the players to seek injunctive relief. Before the lockout, the league year was set to begin almost immediately. Combined with the fact that on April 27 of any other recent offseason, players would be allowed (and, of course, encouraged by their employers) to participate in offseason training activities, it's hard to imagine that Judge Nelson won't conclude that her specific wishes are being violated.

 

 

The league's attitude seems to be: So what? We think we're right. And the owners obviously believe they have a decent chance of getting away with it.

 

Perhaps the NFL will procure the stay it seeks before the end of the week, either from Judge Nelson or (more likely) the Eighth Circuit, and all of this will be moot. Yet no matter what goes down, this disrespect for the law is quite disturbing.

 

 

We always hear that players are role models – indeed, this is the moral justification behind the highly acclaimed personal-conduct policy that commissioner Roger Goodell strengthened shortly after he took the job and has since presided over without appellate review from outside parties. He has been The Sheriff, and players who violate the law – or are charged with crimes, or in some cases even accused of crimes without being charged – routinely feel his wrath in a conspicuously chastened manner.

 

Yet when the owners self-righteously scoff at a federal judge's ruling, basically going about their business as if it didn’t exist while searching for another legal life-preserver, what kind of message are they sending to America’s impressionable minds?

 

You may think this behavior is acceptable because management is always right and players are greedy and your favorite team is part of your identity – but it isn't. The law is the law, and the people charged with deciding it deserve our respect and deference, even if we don't agree with their decisions.

 

I know the owners have achieved some incomprehensible legal victories before – the Maurice Clarett decision, for example, in which a federal appeals court ruled the league essentially has the right to age-discriminate – but they lost this one, and there’s no instant-replay review to bail them out.

 

 

It's time for the owners to honor Judge Nelson's edict by ending this lockout immediately or to face the consequences.

Edited April 27, 2011 by WaterMan

[Caveman_Nick]

 

EDIT: And what I mean by that is that the owners are seeking an expedited appeal. Appeals happen all the time, but they don't necessarily have the timing implications that this appeal does.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Caveman_Nick

[jetsfan]

NFL Owners acting like they are above the law, by Kenny Britt, AP.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I haven't read all the latest here, or elsewhere, but I did hear on the radio this morning that technically the Judge could come right out and shut down the draft tomorrow. Without a CBA in place the draft is technically illegal. The radio guys said there is no way they saw here doing this but that technically that would be the legally correct thing to do.

[Brent]

We hold college football players to a different standard and there's a sort of charm in the flaws. A sloppily played college game is considered gutty and passionate, with each team giving their all. A sloppily played pro game is bad entertainment. It's the same with hoops. If an NBA is shooting 60% the field, he's a chump that needs to get to work. If the center on your college team shoots 50% "Oh, yeah, he can't shoot FTs for crap, but he's working on it and he's a total glue guy"

 

So I don't know if saying, because college football is so popular, an inferior pro game would be. And it would be inferior.

 

That said, if the owners started brand new, eventually they'd have a fine enough product, but they'd lose money along the way. Networks would demand a much lower contract and gate sales would be down initially. Hell, look at the polls, 2/3s of the fans are on the side of the players. Eventually they'd forget, but it wouldn't be overnight.

 

I think both sides could technically get along without the other, but both sides would be far better off just continuing to do business with the other. Both are getting crazy rich right now so either side would be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they tried to go out on their own. And if both did, it would be even worse.

 

 

How exactly could the players get along without the owners?

[Bronco Billy]

How exactly could the players get along without the owners?

 

Cannibalism

[Brent]

Cannibalism

[Chief]

Shut the NFL down, all 32 owners start a new league. Get new players and existing ones that still want to play, let these prima donnas survive on their own.

Unrealistic I know, but it's starting to sound damn good. New league, most of the current rules, rookie cap, in 2-3 years no one will tell the difference.

[Brent]

Shut the NFL down, all 32 owners start a new league. Get new players and existing ones that still want to play, let these prima donnas survive on their own.

Unrealistic I know, but it's starting to sound damn good. New league, most of the current rules, rookie cap, in 2-3 years no one will tell the difference.

 

 

This sounds good to me as well.

[keggerz]

I don't know how you guys think the owners can just "tell" the players to F off and start all over with just college players...sure it is doubtful the players could start their own league but to think that someone else wouldn't come along and start another league with those players is pretty short sighted ...Donald Trump and the USFL basically did it (it being starting up a league) before so to think someone else wouldn't do it is pretty

Edited April 27, 2011 by keggerz

[Skilly]

I haven't read all the latest here, or elsewhere, but I did hear on the radio this morning that technically the Judge could come right out and shut down the draft tomorrow. Without a CBA in place the draft is technically illegal. The radio guys said there is no way they saw here doing this but that technically that would be the legally correct thing to do.

 

This draft was agreed upon through the last CBA, as I understand it. They allowed the CBA to lapse, but with the knowledge that the draft was always going to occur this year.

 

This may be the last draft we see in the NFL, if the players (and lawyers) get their way. Enjoy it tomorrow. Mr. Goodell is the captain of the Titanic now.

[bpwallace49]

Maybe Vince McMahon can restart the XFL but with GOOD players this time?

[Brent]

I don't know how you guys think the owners can just "tell" the players to F off and start all over with just college players...sure it is doubtful the players could start their own league but to think that someone else wouldn't come along and start another league with those players is pretty short sighted ...Donald Trump and the USFL basically did it (it being starting up a league) before so to think someone else wouldn't do it is pretty

 

 

Most of those players couldnt survive the 2-3 years it would take to assemble everything, and those that could, Manning, Brady etc.... would be on the other side of their prime years, and are you telling me Trump or someone else is going to shell out what they are making now? Not a chance that would happen. So as far fetched as it is from happening, I dont see any competition that would pay even close to what the owners wants right now.

[WaterMan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-o...63rE_story.html

 

NFL owners are wrong, and don’t get it

 

By Sally Jenkins, Tuesday, April 26, 10:30 PM

 

Federal judge Susan Richard Nelson essentially said to the NFL owners in her ringing 89-page ruling: Cut your losses, fellas. You’re in the wrong. Understand the extraordinary privilege you have enjoyed all these years, and don’t push it. Stow your hubris, and end the labor dispute, or risk losing everything.

 

The owners don’t get it, and haven’t from the beginning. But they better get it fast, or the entire structure of the league may come down around their ears. On Tuesday, it suddenly became clear what a doomsday scenario they put into play when they picked a financial fight with their players, and locked them out. It was a profound mistake, committed out of arrogance. While they were calculating revenue, studying profit-loss statements and betting on how many unplayed games it would take the players to fold, they should have taken a crucial fact into account: They are in the legal wrong.

They had no right to lock out the players, they are in violation of antitrust law, and what’s more they are repeat, recidivist offenders. They are guilty as charged, and this is the trouble with their hope for relief on appeal.

 

The best way to think about the old NFL collective bargaining agreement is as a beautiful magic cloak. It allowed the owners a kind of charmed invisibility when it came to collusion, to artificially controlling competition, to inhibiting player movement, to making their costs certain, and generally suppressing every free market principle. The fact that they had the consent of players via collective bargaining created a non-statutory labor exemption — it gave the owners legal cover for the socialistic anti-competitive way they operate. It also helped them maintain the goodwill of the paying public. Take away that magic cloak, and they look like pirates.

 

The owners, almost incomprehensibly, voluntarily stripped off their magic cloak and ripped it to shreds, when they opted out of the CBA and demanded $1 billion in concessions from players. They tore up their cloak because, they said, their share of $9.4 billion in revenue wasn’t enough to support them in the style to which they’ve become accustomed.

 

Why would they do such a thing? Profit motive is one answer, and an exaggerated self-regard is another. This is not to say that there aren’t some good owners — there are some wonderful ones, and Roger Goodell has been a strong and sensible commissioner on just about every other issue. But as a group they are used to getting their way, and bending people to their will. The owners seem to genuinely believe that they could not lose in court — or possibly be wrong. Even now, they are convinced that Judge Nelson’s court order to end the lockout will be overturned.

 

It doesn’t seem to occur to NFL owners that Nelson merely held the obvious about their conduct: that it was illegal.

 

Rather than admit wrongdoing or a mistake, the owners are crying that Nelson exceeded her authority, and are bucking her order while they appeal, with games like letting players into their facilities for a cup of coffee but not allowing them to work out. They claim to be confident they will win an appeal, and get a different answer from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, because 13 of the 16 judges were nominated by Republican presidents, and therefore might be conservative and pro-business.

 

Once again, they have miscalculated. The fact is, getting Nelson overturned will be as difficult as getting a call on the field overturned by instant replay — there has to be incontrovertible evidence the ruling was wrong. But that’s not their only problem. What makes the owners think that they are in a position to appeal to conservative, pro-business instincts?

 

The fact is, the owners have now placed themselves in the ludicrous legal position of arguing strenuously against free market principles before conservative judges. On Tuesday, Goodell wrote an extraordinary op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal in which he all but begged for a return to the collective bargaining status quo, the “carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance.” Interestingly enough, Goodell did not offer a single legal defense for the way the league does business. He simply argued that the system has made it “one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.” So judges like Nelson should leave it alone.

 

The plain fact is that the owners are the ones who opened the Pandora’s box — and what popped out is a very big monster. Instead of concessions and pay cuts from players, what they may get from them is an Armageddon. Instead of controlled costs, the owners could be looking at the end of the salary cap, the draft, free agency and the union, with every player an independent contractor free to get the best deal for himself.

The owners’ best hope to settle this dispute and maintain the current structure of the league is clear: make a fairly generous offer to the players that treats them as what they are, essential partners without whom there would be no game on the field. But first they will have to admit to themselves that they made a mistake and were wrong. Good luck with that one.

[Caveman_Nick]

 

Temporary stay granted.