NFL Lockout: Trouble in the ranks?

by Ryan Van Bibber on Apr 20, 2011 2:14 PM CDT in NFL Lockout

There seems to be dissent in the ranks of players, as their designated reps continue the mediation sideshow in a Federal district court. According to Daniel Kaplan at the Sports Business Journal, a group of "as many as 70 players" is planning to file a motion with Judge Nelson's court seeking specific representation in the antitrust suit against the NFL filed by Brady, et al.

This group of so-called "mid-tier" players was unhappy that the first round of mediation ended the way it did last month. Reading between the lines - not too much of a stretch here - that sounds as though this group of players wanted the NFLPA to give more consideration to the last-minute offer made by the NFL, moments before the deadline to decertify as a union.

How this all shakes out remains to be seen It does, however, signal some dissent among the players, a group that's been mostly united through the labor battle, thus far. Public dissension among players would be smiled upon by the league and owners, who could no doubt use it as a big wedge at the bargaining table and the court of public opinion.

It is important to remember that this is a relatively small group of players. The NFLPA, the former NFLPA, represented nearly 2,000. The players reportedly fought the NFL's rookie wage scale proposal that would have had a big impact on "mid-tier" veteran players in the free agent market, i.e. these guys. Was this group of players so unhappy with the breakdown of talks that they would have been willing to swallow a deal like this? Or were they just confident that it was ultimately a push? As one-sided as the owners' proposal might have been, the mid-tier guys would have suffered potentially because of the rookie wage scale issue, but more so because salaries for those players will take the biggest hit compared to what they are now as owners continue to throw dollars at big time free agents or ponying up extensions for franchise-type players.

Player rep Mike Vrabel responded to the news as you might expect.

That's why we're here. That's why Ben [Leber] and I are here. We're players here to represent players and De works for us. They do (have a seat). And if they're unhappy with that seat, we have to vote in a new executive committee, and a new board of reps.

Wake me when this nightmare's over.

[Note by VanRam, 04/20/11 3:25 PM EDT ] Could this potentially change the playing field in the court battle? Florio at Pro Football Talk notes that the league could file a brief ASAP noting that Vrabel's comments prove their argument that the NFLPA decertification was a "sham" move.

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It's heating up

  The judge’s opinion in the offing has to be adding heat to this whole thing. The chance of an appeal being filed by whoever loses, thereby lengthening the process has to have the NFL and players jockeying for alternate avenues to their goals.
  How absurd can all this become? Owners with weak teams that are depending on free agency have to be leaning toward a resolution sooner rather than later. A break in the owner ranks will be less public, but it has to be rumbling around beneath the surface somewhere?
  A rookie cap may be something whose time has come. The problem is the solution is viewed as one sided as far as value. A rookie sees being held captive, losing a chance at free agency or a new contract. There is no loss of benefit on the owner side.
  A solution to even out the risk-reward could be this:
  Rookie contracts are 4 years + one option year. To exercise the option a team must give up a draft pick matching the one used to pick the player or opt for renegotiation or UFA with the player. That pick going into a lottery among all teams.
  Fair agreements are ones where the risk-reward are more fairly shared.
  Wild thought? Crazy thought? Dumb idea? Which ever, it’s time to get more pro-solution than accepting the status quo.

by Douglas M on Apr 20, 2011 3:00 PM CDT reply actions

Following this logic,

after four years – about the time he really becomes a star – Sam Bradford is a free agent and the Rams have to bid against the big revenue teams. How would you like him going to the Cowboys after four years, especially if there is no longer a salary cap to keep them from bidding way high?

These “solutions” sound good when discussed in the abstract, but they don’t look so good when you get down to real life. You can’t just look at what seems fair to the players. You have to also figure out what is fair to the team that drafted him, worked with him, and helped him to become a Pro Bowl player.

by andyhawk on Apr 20, 2011 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions

This is a lockout not a strike

And is in the courts not NLRB. Therefore the unity of the players is not as important as it would otherwise be. The guiding principle is not what each side wants once the mediation process is finished, but rather what is the law. They are fighting over how to divide the expected extra 46 BILLION dollars in the next TV contract. In one fell swoop in two years football becomes at least a 13.5 billion dollar industry rather then 9 billion. Football may be very different than what we have known. Football is becoming a TV show for the masses and the fan going to the stadium is becoming less important. Once you understand that, what is going on becomes much more sensible, if not more tolerable.

by viguy007 on Apr 20, 2011 4:28 PM CDT reply actions

I don't agree with either of your points.

First, the unity of the players does matter. If different splinter groups of players demand a place at the table, saying the “union that isn’t a union” isn’t representing them properly, the whole negotiation process changes. They may even demand an election to decide who should be representing the players association, since the current guys were elected to be the union reps, not the association reps.

Second, the mediation process matters greatly. It is the only thing deciding how the total revenue is split. If the mediation process ends successfully with an agreement, the suit will probably be dropped as part of the agreement. The suit is only dealing with anti-trust issues such as free agency, the salary cap, and whether the agreements between the teams over how they split revenue are lawful. It has very little to do with the split of total revenue between the NFL and the NFLPA. Curt Flood won his anti-trust suit against baseball. Did that end up having anything to do with the split of revenue between the players and owners? No. It dealt with having reasonable rules for free agency and removed any agreements among the owners over how big a share of revenue the players could get. It allowed the big teams like the Yankess and Red Sox to spend as much as they liked, with only very minor financial penalties if they spent more than a certain amount, thus destroying parity in the league. That is exactly where the NFL is headed if the suit goes on and the players win.

I agree the TV money is becoming much more important, but if it was really the dominant issue why are owners building bigger stadiums with more luxury boxes all the time? The money they get from these premium seating areas is also very important or they wouldn’t be spending billions of dollars building them. And the $40 million or so per year they get from the rest of us for sitting in the regular seats also matters. That’s twice what the owners would get per team if their bid to take another billion off the top of total revenue was successful.

It does help to understand what is going on, but the “facts” have to be correct.

by andyhawk on Apr 20, 2011 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions