Ongoing CBA discussions

[GTripp0012]

Here's my take: the players made significant gains for themselves (but not for retired players) in 2006 though the process of collectively bargaining. That negotiation was far more time sensitive than this current one. They couldn't let the 2006 league year begin without a deal because there was no language in that deal to protect against teams leveraging the last capped year to their benefit, and muddying the waters for any potential future labor deal. The salary cap, very seriously, may never have returned and the quality of football declined.

It should not be perceived as a liability of the owners that the players were seemingly unwilling to collectively bargain away some of the gains they had made in 2006 without seeing the financials. Should they have just given back $1 Billion in future revenues? Probably not, but the players association came from a totally false premise that there would be anything close to a "give back" in these negotiations.

There was no agreement. That's why there is currently a lockout. Right now, the players have nothing. There is no agreement, and until a court rules that a lockout violates anti-trust law, no contracts for the upcoming season are valid.

Ultimately, the players are worth a certain amount. They are probably worth less than the owners "best" offer, but more than what they would have gotten if the union had "given back" $1 Billion of the revenue pie. Whatever the number was, it certainly could have been achieved through collective bargaining, but both sides (particularly the players) would have needed to check false entitlement at the door.

It's hard to sympathize with the owners because they certainly are underestimating their own ability to create new revenue streams. They certainly didn't NEED to opt out of the CBA to remain profitable. They may have needed to alter their business models a bit to cut costs and increase revenues (and I thought the 18 game season was a fairly ingenuous was to accomplish this).

The players are fully entitled to choose the litigation route via decertification, but fair value (plus a little extra) could have been achieved through collective bargaining. The only logical reason for going this route has little to do with fair value and mutually ensured prosperity, but with "going to war" and "winning" the labor dispute. That's an excellent example of the greed that they NFLPA leadership is accusing the owners of.

The NFLPA probably does have better laywers and likely can "win" in court, and the fans ultimately aren't going to give a damn when football is here next season, and as an observer it's hard for me not to root for the players to get whatever they can in the negotiations.

But the buck will eventually just be passed along to the fans anyway.