The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2010, 04:09 PM   #1
El Minion
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,766
Default There Will Not Be a Lockout in the NFL

This from a finalist candidate for the NFLPA Executive Director position

––––––––––––––––––
Public discussion of the looming labor war in the National Football League has all but conceded that NFL owners will lock out players if there is not a new collective bargaining agreement by March 2011. Owners will not lock out players in 2011. Instead, NFL owners will employ a tactic that enhances their leverage in CBA negotiations, increases their share revenues over what they retain under the current CBA, and avoids the wrath of fans, which would surely follow a lockout.

Our labor laws are designed to encourage labor and management to work out their differences in a private contract (collective bargaining agreement). Labor law provides labor and management with swords and shields that enable each side to pressure the other to get a deal. The most significant shield is the non-statutory exemption to the antitrust laws, which insulates both labor and management from antitrust challenges. While lockouts and strikes are among the swords provided by labor law, impasse and decertification (and the rules relating to them) are more likely to be the weapons of choice for the NFL and the NFLPA as the current NFL labor dispute unfolds.

Work stoppages (strikes and lockouts) are the least desirable tactic in sports' labor disputes because, as Commissioner Goodell noted in his recent Super Bowl press conference, both sides lose. When NFL players went on strike in 1987 (the last work stoppage in the NFL), owners compromised the integrity of the game by playing with replacement players and, after three weeks, players ended their strike because they could not endure the economic impact of a strike -- no work means no paycheck. In the end, both sides lost. It does not matter which side initiates a work stoppage, each side ends up hurting itself as much as the other side. NFL owners will not lockout players in 2011 because there is a better option.

In March 2011, once the NFL and the NFLPA have negotiated to impasse, the NFL will invoke a rule relating to impasse and unilaterally impose new rules for wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment that will be, as required by labor law, substantially similar to the last proposal made to the NFLPA prior to negotiations reaching impasse. The NFL used this tactic in 1987.

In response, in 1987 Gene Upshaw decertified the NFLPA as the collective bargaining representative of NFL players and, invoking a labor law rule relating to decertification, stripped the NFL of the antitrust exemption and opened the door for a wave of antitrust lawsuits against the NFL's then unilaterally imposed system.

Without the antitrust exemption between 1987 and 1993, the NFL's draft, free agency rules, and certain rules regarding player compensation were ultimately declared unlawful. Since 1993, each collective bargaining agreement in the NFL is a variation, in one form or another, of the settlement agreement that resolved the antitrust lawsuits that began with the NFLPA's decertification in 1987.

In 2011, a unilaterally imposed post-impasse system will inure to NFL owners' economic benefit. Commissioner Goodell recently reported that under the 2006 CBA, owners have generated $3.6 billion in incremental revenues and paid $2.6 billion of that "new money" to players. Owners will not be required to share a fixed percentage of revenue with players or fund collectively bargained benefits when the current CBA expires in March 2011. On purely economic terms, owners will conclude that unilaterally imposing a new system after impasse will cost them less than the $2.6 billion paid to players over the last four years. Some of the revenues that owners will retain without a CBA will be spent on litigation and other costs, tangible and intangible, incurred from the absence of labor peace, but by retaining a substantially higher percentage of revenues through a unilaterally imposed post-impasse system, owners achieve their primary objective in the current CBA negotiations. Impasse will shift the dynamic in collective bargaining negotiations in the owners' favor.

As negotiations progress closer to March 2011, expect the NFL to tailor its collective bargaining proposals so that its final, pre-impasse proposal will have two features: (1) owners will make more money than they do under the current CBA and; (2) when converted into a post-impasse system, a reasonable chance of surviving years of challenges under the antitrust laws.

The NFLPA will face a tough choice if the owners press collective bargaining to impasse in 2011. Confronting a smaller piece of the pie under a new system will force the NFLPA to either strike or decertify. The NFLPA cannot strike, sacrifice players' paychecks, and expose players to public ridicule. In response to an impasse, players will play and the NFLPA will decertify and file antitrust lawsuits attacking each element of the owners' post-impasse system. This may be a risky, expensive, and time-consuming course for players.

The NFLPA's antitrust successes between 1987 and 1993 were won on a different playing field. Then, the NFLPA attacked a draft that was 12 rounds (not seven), free agency that excluded players most likely to benefit from an open market for their services (Plan B), and fixed salaries that looked like a price fixing sitting duck (practice squad). The NFLPA's successes in these lawsuits resulted in negotiated free agency for players and "cost certainty" for owners in the form of a salary cap. The result has been over 20 years of labor peace, which ushered in explosive growth in player salaries, the popularity of the game, and the value of NFL franchises. The current dispute over revenue sharing is not as dramatic as the 1987 dispute over free agency and cost certainty. In 2011, NFL owners' downside may not be as great as it was in 1987.

Regardless of the outcome of the NFLPA's antitrust challenges, it will likely take at least five years to obtain final rulings. In the interim, owners will save billions in player costs and fans will enjoy NFL football in 2011 and beyond. The open question is whether the ultimate benefit to players will be greater than the cost.
El Minion is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-17-2010, 05:58 PM   #2
BroncoMan4ever
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoMan4ever's Avatar
 
That's just like your opinion, man

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,444

Adopt-a-Bronco:
VIRGIL GREEN!!!
Default

i'm not surprised. the true surprise would have been if there was a lockout. the millions that the players union and owners are at an impasse over right now, is small compared to the amount of money the league will lose if there is a lockout.
BroncoMan4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 12:22 AM   #3
BroncoDoug
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoDoug's Avatar
 
R.I.P. D-Will and D-Nash

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 2,834

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

aaaaaaaand lockout
BroncoDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 04:07 AM   #4
Dedhed
Ring of Famer
 
Dedhed's Avatar
 
Fare thee well

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,333

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Q Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoDoug View Post
aaaaaaaand lockout
Actually...no.
Dedhed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:15 AM   #5
Beantown Bronco
Athletic Supporter
 
Beantown Bronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mass
Posts: 20,399

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Matt Prater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedhed View Post
Actually...no.
Someone needs to tell the players then.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nfllabor
Beantown Bronco is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:10 AM   #6
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,748

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

silly post, because the lockout began at 12...
tsiguy96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:41 AM   #7
rugbythug
Church Eyes.
 
rugbythug's Avatar
 
Salty Dog

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,065

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mr. Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsiguy96 View Post
silly post, because the lockout began at 12...
Check the date
rugbythug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:43 AM   #8
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,748

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugbythug View Post
Check the date
hmmm makes sense
tsiguy96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 07:12 AM   #9
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,143

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Fug um
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 09:25 AM   #10
Pontius Pirate
Ring of Famer
 
Pontius Pirate's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'Nam
Posts: 1,776
Default

What else is a candidate for the NFLPA ED job going to say?

"Yeah, I'm thinking all of my constituents will be out of a job. Lockout here we come. I hope this doesn't hurt my chances. Vote for me!"
Pontius Pirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 09:52 AM   #11
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,236

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

So basically the current CBA is in effect while both sides are in litigation, with the owners keeping more revenue, and the players receiving the same pay and benefits?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 04:32 PM   #12
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,766

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
So basically the current CBA is in effect while both sides are in litigation, with the owners keeping more revenue, and the players receiving the same pay and benefits?
Re-read the date of the post.

There is a lockout. While the owners could pursue this route, they are banking on the idea that they can hold out from a complete work stoppage longer than the players.
Kaylore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 04:44 PM   #13
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,236

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
Re-read the date of the post.

There is a lockout. While the owners could pursue this route, they are banking on the idea that they can hold out from a complete work stoppage longer than the players.
The process is still going to litigation via Doty (the judge), as in 1987, that is my understanding. The NFLPA has decertified, as in 1987. There will be litigation between the two sides and while the litigation is in process, the two sides will continue to do business as usual. That is what I'm taking from info like the article from www.itsalloverfatman.com and the above article.

The owners don't have the leverage to have a work stoppage. They lost their their court battle with the NFLPA about the TV revenue insurance policy. Doty already ruled against the owners on that. At least, that is my understanding. Without that revenue coming in (or maybe it is coming in but the owners have to pay it back) they can't afford a long term work stoppage.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Denver Broncos