I roll the other way. I just don't see the players going into mediation with any incentive to deal if there's nothing at risk in the short term. But that's just me.
Excellent point. My position is that the Jets benefit from 2010 rules returning, and that I can't imagine the league actually shutting things down again after 2 full weeks of free agency. I'd think they'd want to hammer out an agreement, but you're right that the players would likely rebuff that. It's a problem either way, but I agree your position carries better long term hopes.
Me too. All of the excitement yesterday that "football is back!" seemed all too premature and unrealistic.
I don't think the commish announces players after the first round. I guess whoever's doing it is gonna get the brunt of the dissatisfaction though, especially if there is a stay.
This can actually be a good thing. If there is going to be a deal, both sides need an incentive to reach a deal. The players had no incentive to do anything after Nelson's ruling. In fact, Nelson's ruling was bad for the game. With no CBA, the NFL lost all anti-trust protection. That means restrictions on player movement (free agent rules requiring 4-6 years of service, the draft, etc.) are all illegal under anti-trust rules. If you are a fan of the sport and a Jets fan, you should actually support the owner's position in general. The NFL is successful because of revenue sharing and the rules it has in place that makes each team competitive. The game is better for the fans if players stay with their teams longer. The NFL is not like other businesses. In reality, it is really like one company with branches in 32 cities. Competitive balance would be gone if the NFL had a free market, which would have been the result if you took Nelson's ruling to its logical conclusion. Plus, the NFL would not be the same if it were like baseball and the big market teams had a financial advantage. It also would not be the same if the building through the draft and player development became de-emphasized if there were a free market for the players. Or if there were no draft at all. The Jets are, finally, one of the stronger teams in the league and have a front office that can draft. No Jets fan should want rules that would permit players to leave earlier in their careers. I know that players say they want to play for Ryan, but let's face it, the players will always go to the highest bidder. So why is the 8th Circuit ruling good? Because the players now have some uncertainty. Prior to this ruling, if the 8th Circuit backed the District Court, the players had the owners by the short hairs and who knows what would have happened or what kind or NFL we would have had. Deals are made when both sides have something to lose. Nelson's ruling jolted the owners. This ruling should jolt the players. Both sides are all in now with the 8th Circuit. If the players win the appeal and the lockout is lifted, the owners are screwed and have no bargaining power. If the owners win at the 8th Circuit and the lock out stands and the players' decertification is deemed a sham, they have lost it all and have no bargaining power. The owners will keep the players out until they cave in to the owners' demands (and the players will cave under this scenario eventually because they have more to lose in the short run - a year of pay and a year of their careers). So hopefully what happens here is that both sides come to their senses in the middle of May and strike a deal when they go back to mediation before the magistrate in Minnesota. Just my take based on my experience (I am a lawyer and with an employment law litigation background).
Nobody wants a litigated resolution. What makes sense is for the NFL to lose their appeal and cave in at the bargaining table, leading to a long-term deal with no opt-outs. I don't really care that much about the specifics (within reason), I just want a deal done.
Bingo.... excellent analysis. Here's another reason that loudmouth DeMaurice Smith should start negotiating and stop kissing Eric Holder's and Barack Obama's behinds: if the anti-trust suit kicks in, the NFL can always employ contraction as a threat. Without revenue sharing, the Jets/Giants/Redskins/Cowboys are not going to get 3.3% of the TV revnue, each is probably going to get closer to 8-10%. Without the revenue sharing that Wellington Mara sacrificed for -- something Smith and the NFLPA don't believe in -- 4-8 teams would go bye-bye. The economic situation today is different from when Paul Tagliabue gave away the store (and the Bills and Bengals were the only teams to vote "NO"). The Cowboys and Jets/Giants can't find stadium sponsors at a price that make sense. Tickets are going unsold. Even TV revenue may be hitting a wall soon (at least domestic TV revenues) because cable companies and the networks are bitching about the high-cost of sports programming. I know, I know, they've been saying that for years. Yup....and they said the same thing about paying for "Movies Of The Week" and rebroadcast rights for 1st-run movies. Finally, about 1990, after 20 years of complaining and whining, they stopped bidding against themselves and the TV rights fell throughout the decade. You don't need for TV rights to fall for the NFL to be hit with a tsunami. All you need is for increases to level off and you'd have big trouble under the old CBA. If I were an owner, why the hell would I take the risk of a huge stadium (costs doubled in 10 years), rising insurance costs, higher CBA costs.....and then give the players a GUARANTEED 55% of the gross upside....while I, the owner, take 100% of the downside ? I agree with the players on the 16-game schedule but that's it. I know DeMaurice Smith doesn't want to be seen as the successor to Gene Upshaw who gave in and made concessions, but the economy today is not that of 2005-06.
Right, agree to high fixed-costs regardless of the economic conditions. That was the prescription for success for General Motors, Eastman Kodak, and Bethlehem Steel. lol
Even the pro-NFLPA writers and columnists have pretty much said that the NFL's last deal was pretty much fair. They compromised on a lot and moved hugely towards the players. The problem is that DeMaurcice Smith doesn't want to give an inch. He's the anti-Wellington Mara: he won't invest $1 today for $10 a decade from now. He sold his NFLPA campaign on not giving an inch. This is the problems with unions: their leadership's interests are different from the rank-and-file's.
The last offer came so late there was no realistic opportunity to consider it. The owners were implementing a lockout regardless and if they did that first then decertification couldn't happen. Throughout the process the owners have been focussed only on getting their own way. Three days to react to Judge Nelson's ruling, three hours to react to the stay. Says it all.
I'm pretty much done with the NFL is this shit messes with the season. As it stands, I'm not buying merch or going to games or watching many games for awhile.
