NFLPA looking for long strike

the NFL is so one sided that it's laughable. Why should these guys risk their lives for so little guarantees along with fines, suspensions for sneezing, etc.

they need to start talking tough now, so when it's time to actually negotiate their concessions get them to an acceptable spot.

they have the worst contract of all the major sports.

ownership knows that they can sustain the financial hit longer and the players will come back after a short time. It happened in 1982 and again in 1987. Players seem to be doing a better job investing their money, getting out earlier in their careers due to injury/ CTE risks. But odds are there are too many players who simply can't afford to miss those paychecks.

It's been 30 years since the scabs, I wonder if the NFL would ever do that again if push came to shove and get players to cross the picket line.

UConn is right about a bad CBA. I think they need better benefits - health care, and long term health care at that etc. Not a fan of guaranteed contracts like baseball where you are getting paid even if you are done. I sort of like the pre-paid guaranteed money like they have now.
I'd like to see the CAP go up; a type of DL so players can healthy and play again after a significant injury in the same year; there should be a proper appeals board where the Commish is not jury, judge and executioner.

they spoke a big game before and agreed to this awful cba

In comment 13569908 Default said:

Quote:

they spoke a big game before and agreed to this awful cba

Pretty much. They have no one to blame but themselves for signing that steaming pile.

In comment 13569892 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

the NFL is so one sided that it's laughable. Why should these guys risk their lives for so little guarantees along with fines, suspensions for sneezing, etc.

Because they are well-paid compared to what they would make from an alternative career. Cops and firemen risk their lives for a lot less money.

is that for many of these guys their careers are short anyway, so it's hard to get so many to commit long term to forfeiting too many games to a strike. The owners know this.

In comment 13569913 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 13569892 UConn4523 said: Quote: the NFL is so one sided that it's laughable. Why should these guys risk their lives for so little guarantees along with fines, suspensions for sneezing, etc. Because they are well-paid compared to what they would make from an alternative career. Cops and firemen risk their lives for a lot less money.

milton you know you cannot compare apples to oranges. By the same token, soldiers get paid less compared to police and firemen.(Not sure meals, uniforms and quarters can be included)
Actors, musicians etc, all get paid a lot for non-essential functions. Teachers get paid squat.
Entertainers get paid.

In comment 13569913 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 13569892 UConn4523 said: Quote: the NFL is so one sided that it's laughable. Why should these guys risk their lives for so little guarantees along with fines, suspensions for sneezing, etc. Because they are well-paid compared to what they would make from an alternative career. Cops and firemen risk their lives for a lot less money.

Horrible argument. I'm talking about the context of sports. Most profitable league with employees who have the most to lose with their health along with the the least amount of pay and least rights.

In comment 13569926 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 13569913 Milton said: Quote: In comment 13569892 UConn4523 said: Quote: the NFL is so one sided that it's laughable. Why should these guys risk their lives for so little guarantees along with fines, suspensions for sneezing, etc. Because they are well-paid compared to what they would make from an alternative career. Cops and firemen risk their lives for a lot less money. milton you know you cannot compare apples to oranges. By the same token, soldiers get paid less compared to police and firemen.(Not sure meals, uniforms and quarters can be included) Actors, musicians etc, all get paid a lot for non-essential functions. Teachers get paid squat. Entertainers get paid.

The point is they get paid very well and that's why they make the sacrifice. If they could be a high paid actor or musician, I would recommend that over the NFL. But if it's a choice between being a football player or a cop or a fireman or a soldier or a teacher for that matter, I certainly understand why they choose football despite the risks.

leverage. ZERO.

The 300 or so stars/millionaires are not going to be able to convince the other 1620 to risk losing a year of play and a year of pay to meet their needs.

And,

the 95% of the players who keep their noses clean aren't going to fight the comish's power of authority to risk that either.

but you get my point.

In comment 13569941 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 13569913 Milton said: Quote: In comment 13569892 UConn4523 said: Quote: the NFL is so one sided that it's laughable. Why should these guys risk their lives for so little guarantees along with fines, suspensions for sneezing, etc. Because they are well-paid compared to what they would make from an alternative career. Cops and firemen risk their lives for a lot less money. Horrible argument. I'm talking about the context of sports. Most profitable league with employees who have the most to lose with their health along with the the least amount of pay and least rights.

It's also the league with 53 players on a roster (not to mention IR and practice squad) and only eight home games per year. And they get signing bonuses in lieu of guaranteed contracts.

In the NFL, you can't have both a hard salary cap and fully guaranteed contracts. Too many injuries. Large signing bonuses are the compromise. It splits the difference when it comes to the risk of injury.

but the NFL has always had that many home games, the roster size, etc. It doesn't explain the massive disparity in a growing entity making money hand over fist and the continued neglect of its players especially those outside of the top 5-10% who have short careers and don't even get a pension.

with the NFLPA is that football players have so little leverage.

Not only are football careers short, but these guys don't have any alternatives. Baseball players can play in Japan, Korea, and the Caribbean, which works for the many of them that are foreign-born.

NBA players can threaten to play in Europe, China, Israel, or even Brazil. NHL players can threaten to play all over Europe, especially the foreign-born players.

Where are NFL players going if they don't get what they want? Canada? That league can't support them.

Fucked the rookies over. The rookie cap was needed and somewhat fair but needs to be tweaked for players like OBJ Donald and Martin can have some leverage if they out perform.

But you can't make everyone totally happy. And no CBA aid ecer going to be totally fair for every player. More games might be a compromise. Extend the season. But they need to adjust a lot. Lack of practice time is stupid. It's hurting players. You can make more OTA's Less contact.

This sounds a bit desperate though by the union

...the disparity between the have's and the have-not's would be even greater. The stars would be making twice as much as they are making now and the role players would be making half of what they are making now.

...is symbolic of what the salary structure in the NFL would look like with no collective bargaining agreement. A "team owner" will spend more than half of his $200 budget on two or three players with players on the bottom half of the roster costing just $1 each. Why? Because there are only a handful of stars you are competing for while role players are interchangeable.

In comment 13569972 LauderdaleMatty said:

Quote:

Fucked the rookies over. The rookie cap was needed and somewhat fair but needs to be tweaked for players like OBJ Donald and Martin can have some leverage if they out perform. But you can't make everyone totally happy. And no CBA aid ecer going to be totally fair for every player. More games might be a compromise. Extend the season. But they need to adjust a lot. Lack of practice time is stupid. It's hurting players. You can make more OTA's Less contact. This sounds a bit desperate though by the union

I will totally disagree with your take on the Rookie cap. Too many toads were coming out and getting more money than established stars with many holding out on top of it. The problem, if there was one, was that money was meant for veteran starters, but the stars sucked up the extra.
Maybe the rookie contracts should be 3 yrs with a 4th year option for 1st rounders instead of 4 with a 5th year option.

In comment 13569978 Milton said:

Quote:

...the disparity between the have's and the have-not's would be even greater. The stars would be making twice as much as they are making now and the role players would be making half of what they are making now.

While I agree, I don't get why that matters. Shouldn't it be better? This shouldn't be a situation where having something is better than nothing, which is essentially what you are saying. Why shouldn't they get better long term health benefits? Why shouldn't they get better guarantees?

In comment 13570000 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 13569978 Milton said: Quote: ...the disparity between the have's and the have-not's would be even greater. The stars would be making twice as much as they are making now and the role players would be making half of what they are making now. While I agree, I don't get why that matters. Shouldn't it be better? This shouldn't be a situation where having something is better than nothing, which is essentially what you are saying. Why shouldn't they get better long term health benefits? Why shouldn't they get better guarantees?

At this point, the money they make is good. What they need is better long term health care 1st and most important and better benefits overall.
If you want more guarantees, then the cap must go up. I'm not opposed to both going up.

they had no leverage since they were not able to sit out a season. If they have the strength to sit out a season then they will have real leverage, and I hope they can do it.
They need to get rid of the franchise tag, or at least allow teams to franchise tag players only once.
They need to get rid of this 5th year option bullshit too. 4 year rookie contract then negotiate with the team or become a free agent and negotiate with other teams.
Many fans bitch about how players dont EARN the money they are paid, especially rookies, but the franchise tag and 5th year option hold players who have EARNED a better, long term contract from being able to get it.
Those 2 things I believe are the shittiest things the owners have over the players.
The conduct policy I have no problem with, and the reduced practices were a consolation prize for the players, who wanted to keep the revenue split status quo and did not get that. Smith had to get something, and thats what he got. It hurts teams, especially offensive efficiency, but it reduces the wear and tear on these guys bodies, and i think they like that.
Thursday night football aint going nowhere, even though it is contrary to the league's stance that they are concerned about player safety. Not putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

Revenues are split 50/50. The Giants gave out $200 million in contracts to three free agents in 2016. What exactly is so bad for the players? Goodall having power they agreed to. How exactly can the players go before the NLRB and claim they negotiated in good faith when four years out they talked about a work stoppage. Do not understand why this is a bad deal for players? Less practice...more money...hmmmm

In comment 13569941 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 13569913 Milton said: Quote: In comment 13569892 UConn4523 said: Quote: the NFL is so one sided that it's laughable. Why should these guys risk their lives for so little guarantees along with fines, suspensions for sneezing, etc. Because they are well-paid compared to what they would make from an alternative career. Cops and firemen risk their lives for a lot less money. Horrible argument. I'm talking about the context of sports. Most profitable league with employees who have the most to lose with their health along with the the least amount of pay and least rights.

. 32 NFL teams and 53 active on a roster: 1,696 players. NBA 15 players per team on 30 teams. 450 players. So the NBA makes 50 % less but pays 75% less players.

In comment 13570080 djstat said:

Quote:

Revenues are split 50/50. The Giants gave out $200 million in contracts to three free agents in 2016. What exactly is so bad for the players? Goodall having power they agreed to. How exactly can the players go before the NLRB and claim they negotiated in good faith when four years out they talked about a work stoppage. Do not understand why this is a bad deal for players? Less practice...more money...hmmmm

It's a bad CBA for many of he players. The money is pooled at the top. So more money to less players is not a good deal for he majority of the union Also less practice helps vets and hurts younger guys who need more reps.

1 year deals for unlimited money

And a yearly league wide real life fantasy draft.

Every team picks new players every year.

Pros: players make more money, league makes a zillion dollars on the 30 day long fantasy draft on espn.

Cons: the players move every year.

Eli will be gone and the Giants will most likely stink. Ticket prices, parking, food, etc. are ridiculous.
I'm getting tired of all the drama in the NFL anyway.
I'll start following college football more.

In comment 13570146 ZogZerg said:

Quote:

Eli will be gone and the Giants will most likely stink. Ticket prices, parking, food, etc. are ridiculous. I'm getting tired of all the drama in the NFL anyway. I'll start following college football more.

This is getting quite the reaction from many young folks as well....

Put aside their salary. Teams feed them three meals a day if they want. Build performance centers which have rec activities etc. All that costs money.

Players agreed to deal. Its not one sided. If it were a Judge would not have signed off on it. Stop believing the drama. You probably get treated a lot worse by your employer then any NFL player does. Deal is one sided? Victor Cruz made $7 million in 2015 and never set foot on the field. Didn't rehab properly and hurt his calf, but had no issues instead of rehabbing shooting an episode of ballers.

Forget which host it was but I believe it was dipietro

He said that the owners are ready to allow medical marijuana and many suspensions come from that issue. He said that alone could go a long way with the NFL players in the negotiations

In comment 13570167 djstat said:

Quote:

Put aside their salary. Teams feed them three meals a day if they want. Build performance centers which have rec activities etc. All that costs money. Players agreed to deal. Its not one sided. If it were a Judge would not have signed off on it. Stop believing the drama. You probably get treated a lot worse by your employer then any NFL player does. Deal is one sided? Victor Cruz made $7 million in 2015 and never set foot on the field. Didn't rehab properly and hurt his calf, but had no issues instead of rehabbing shooting an episode of ballers.

You have to assess within the context of sport. Why are people relating athletes and their careers to that if their own?

They have the worst CBA of the major sports, I don't even think it's debatable. So if it's the worst and they take on the greatest risk, then you have a very unfair deal.

And save the excuse that they signed it, of course they did, that's how they continue working. For every Tom Brady there's 50 players who won't see a big contract or a pension.

In comment 13570080 djstat said:

Quote:

Revenues are split 50/50.

Even that is very arguable.

The revenue that the ownerships admit to is split 50/50.

If I remember the last labor dispute, not opening up the books was a huge sticking point.

In comment 13569895 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

they need to start talking tough now, so when it's time to actually negotiate their concessions get them to an acceptable spot. they have the worst contract of all the major sports.

Exactly. It's in the NFLPA's best interests to take a shot across the bow early, try to plant the seed. I do think the next stoppage could be a long one, as I think the players are going to demand a lot. Less direct control of player suspensions by the commish office, and, more importantly, more guarantees in their contracts.

The owners are more afraid of a strike than the players. With all the new times building billion dollar stadiums, they don't want a stoppage either. Look at Dallas, for example, Jerry has not only the new stadium, but also basically a theme park built around it, the new training facility with restaurants and shops. He has his fingers on the pulse, and I am sure if he felt like it would go tits up in the next 3-4 years, he would not be investing like that, nor any of the other owners either.

If you know Kotter's model for change, this is it. They (NFLPA) are attempting to create a sense of urgency, this will help them build a coalition from players, media, and fans to MAYBE help talk the owners into something they (owners) don't want currently. They know this is the only shot they really have.

they're losing viewers in large part because the traditional broadcast model that made the league so much money is going by the wayside. The extent to which politicization is actually impacting viewership is debatable, but it's at least A factor. Concussions are at least a consideration, and some of the changes to address them - limiting the glorification and marketing of hard hitting, for one - is making the product less exciting. The incessant penalties too. So it's a business model whose traditional revenue streams are likely to stagnate or decline and whose replacement streams aren't as obvious. It's a product that to many of us seems to be in decline. When you throw in the age-old pro sports strike/lockout gripe (millionaires fighting with billionaires), it might actually bring about the decline of the sport.

Are NFL players really underpaid relative to other sports? The NFL minimum salary is $465K which works out to ~$29k per game. Top paid players can earn >$1M per game.

NBA minimum salary is $490k or ~$6K per game (~1/5 of the NFL min). MLB minimum salary is $535k or ~$3300 per game (~1/9 of the NFL min). Similarly, top players in NBA/MLB make ~2/5 and ~1/5 of the top NFL players on a per game basis.

I'm not sure per-day would really be apples to apples either, but at least takes account that these guys aren't giving up their time just on gameday. It's not sunday and 6 days of netflix.

16 game regular season or not, is not really comparable to any sport but maybe hockey. Undoubtedly a baseball or basketball career takes a toll on limbs and joints and backs, and a baseball to the head or a hard fall could certainly produce a head injury. But it has to be exceedingly rare to escape a football career stretching from Pop Warner to the pros without multiple concussions. The normal wear and tear of football's collisions is a unique burden on the body.

guys on social media and watch the lifestyles they lead and I find it hard to see players giving up half a mill game checks for an extended period of time. I think Snacks alone has a car for every day of the month.

When I'm told my $200 ticket gets me nosebleed seats here in Tampa, I hope they do lose a lot of viewership and ticket sales weaken.

but the league rules on passing have tipped all the money to fewer and fewer guys, namely QBs ... but also to WRs,DEs, and Corners. Away from "trenches" guys and RBs. Its unfair, but the market is what it is.

Also they really need to do away with the stupid franchise/transition tag shit.

In comment 13570507 giants#1 said:

Quote:

Are NFL players really underpaid relative to other sports? The NFL minimum salary is $465K which works out to ~$29k per game. Top paid players can earn >$1M per game. NBA minimum salary is $490k or ~$6K per game (~1/5 of the NFL min). MLB minimum salary is $535k or ~$3300 per game (~1/9 of the NFL min). Similarly, top players in NBA/MLB make ~2/5 and ~1/5 of the top NFL players on a per game basis.

Stupid analogy. The reason the NFL plays significantly fewer games is because of the increased violence, obviously. And why shouldnt these guys be compensated for practice and for training all year round? Do you not get paid to prepare for a presentation?

hold out to get rid of the franchise tag? Only a very small % of guys will ever be effected by these tags. The tags don't reduce the amount of money paid to the players, it just allocates that money more ratably toward the "rank and file" and away from the super-stars (who still draw huge salaries).

IMO, the NFLPA should focus on higher minimum salaries, player discipline handled by a neutral arbitrator, and better retirement and healthcare benefits for anyone who plays in the league for X amount of years (X could even be 1 and scale up with each year of service). Would be the best way to get the majority of the union to pass a new CBA.

In comment 13570514 Mad Mike said:

Quote:

I'm not sure per-day would really be apples to apples either, but at least takes account that these guys aren't giving up their time just on gameday. It's not sunday and 6 days of netflix.

It's not apples-to-apples, but the NFL plays 1/5 as many games as the NBA and 1/10 as the MLB which means far fewer opportunities to generate revenue. Combine that with the larger rosters (>4x NBA and 2x MLB) and it's unreasonable to expect the players to earn comparable "top" salaries, which is what people are typically comparing when they compare salaries across sports.

That said, the players also deserve more than a 50/50 split of the revenue. NFL players also get hurt by the relative anonymity compared to other sports. Compare Beckham's record setting deal with Nike (for an NFL player) with the deals top NBA players routinely get. The stupid celebration penalties after TDs definitely hurt the players in this regard (IIRC, didn't the dirty birds get some ad deals after their TD celebration?).

In comment 13570602 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

In comment 13570507 giants#1 said: Quote: Are NFL players really underpaid relative to other sports? The NFL minimum salary is $465K which works out to ~$29k per game. Top paid players can earn >$1M per game. NBA minimum salary is $490k or ~$6K per game (~1/5 of the NFL min). MLB minimum salary is $535k or ~$3300 per game (~1/9 of the NFL min). Similarly, top players in NBA/MLB make ~2/5 and ~1/5 of the top NFL players on a per game basis. Stupid analogy. The reason the NFL plays significantly fewer games is because of the increased violence, obviously. And why shouldnt these guys be compensated for practice and for training all year round? Do you not get paid to prepare for a presentation?

I'm fully aware of why they play fewer games (also increases scarcity which helps boost viewership and ultimately ad revenue). Like it or not, they get their base salary as gameday checks. And intensity is certainly higher during games than practices.

In comment 13570225 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

Why are people relating athletes and their careers to that if their own?

Because they are fucking idiots

In comment 13570601 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

but the league rules on passing have tipped all the money to fewer and fewer guys, namely QBs ... but also to WRs,DEs, and Corners. Away from "trenches" guys and RBs. Its unfair, but the market is what it is. Also they really need to do away with the stupid franchise/transition tag shit.

I don't think the rules moved the $$ away from RBs as much as the wear and tear RBs take. Much more injury risk for RBs than WRs.

Don't see the tags going anywhere anytime soon. The owners want them to have control over the top players and 99% of the players don't care enough about the tags to make it a central negotiating issue. There was a good (SI?) article about this a while back.

In comment 13570603 Metnut said:

Quote:

hold out to get rid of the franchise tag? Only a very small % of guys will ever be effected by these tags. The tags don't reduce the amount of money paid to the players, it just allocates that money more ratably toward the "rank and file" and away from the super-stars (who still draw huge salaries). IMO, the NFLPA should focus on higher minimum salaries, player discipline handled by a neutral arbitrator, and better retirement and healthcare benefits for anyone who plays in the league for X amount of years (X could even be 1 and scale up with each year of service). Would be the best way to get the majority of the union to pass a new CBA.

I'd add that the #1 focus for the NFLPA should be getting the revenue split into their favor. I think it's currently something like 48-52 or 48.5-51.5 in favor of the owners. Also need to get all revenue streams included in these numbers (IIRC, the last CBA made significant progress here).

I wouldn't make player discipline a big issue as it probably impacts fewer players then the franchise tags. The cases that are decided arbitrarily are typically the DV ones, not drug related suspensions. On drug suspensions, they should definitely move to take marijuana off the restricted list.

I wish they'd just start hammering out a deal early enough to avoid yet another strike. But of course they won't. And it seems like the players have no leverage unless they strike.

In comment 13570606 giants#1 said:

Quote:

. NFL players also get hurt by the relative anonymity compared to other sports. Compare Beckham's record setting deal with Nike (for an NFL player) with the deals top NBA players routinely get.

It's not due to anonymity. It's about shoes. People want to own a basketball player's shoes. Top basketball shoes have $100M+ in sales per year. I think Lebron's shoes have over $300M. Not a big market for football cleats.

It's gotta be the shoes.

when careers are short. Owners don't blow out knees. If you don't get your money while you can when you can, you could lose it all in a single bad hit.

Everything is short-term thinking by the players out of necessity.

In comment 13570507 giants#1 said:

Quote:

Are NFL players really underpaid relative to other sports? The NFL minimum salary is $465K which works out to ~$29k per game. Top paid players can earn >$1M per game. NBA minimum salary is $490k or ~$6K per game (~1/5 of the NFL min). MLB minimum salary is $535k or ~$3300 per game (~1/9 of the NFL min). Similarly, top players in NBA/MLB make ~2/5 and ~1/5 of the top NFL players on a per game basis.

You aren't factoring in the average careers of each sport, nor the long term health ramifications. You regularly see guys playing in the MLB through their late 30s, mid 30's for the NBA. Those are 10-15 year careers for journeymen like Brian Scalabrine who basically never even played. Now compare that to the average NFL career...

with "getting suspended for sneezing".
Everything afterwards is hostage to hyperbole.

I understand both sides of the rookie cap. But it's patently illegal and falls under "restraint of trade" in The Sherman Anti-trust act. How do you tell a kid that he can't get market value for his services.? You can't, at least not legally.
Yes, it's not fair to the pro who is established and making less than the rookie is asking for...but that's the way of the world. And if the union and the league want to set standards and rules, the college senior is not part of the union. So in effect the union is giving away the rights of a non-union member.

In comment 13571277 grizz299 said:

Quote:

with "getting suspended for sneezing". Everything afterwards is hostage to hyperbole. I understand both sides of the rookie cap. But it's patently illegal and falls under "restraint of trade" in The Sherman Anti-trust act. How do you tell a kid that he can't get market value for his services.? You can't, at least not legally. Yes, it's not fair to the pro who is established and making less than the rookie is asking for...but that's the way of the world. And if the union and the league want to set standards and rules, the college senior is not part of the union. So in effect the union is giving away the rights of a non-union member.

The draft is patently illegal -- not allowing players do seek employment with whoever they want is the definition if restraint of trade.

Except that the draft -- and the rookie cap -- were both agreed to in collective bargaining, and so are protected under the Clayton Act.

about employment in sports that is illegal if it were to extend to other industries, except that in each case, there is an acceptance by another entity (a player's union) that allows it.

When terms are agreed to under collective bargaining - they are protected and legal

or what Jim said.