MVN - Most Valuable Network

Owners Opt Out of Labor Deal

Today at the spring owners meetings, things kicked off quickly when the owners unanimously voted to terminate the current CBA agreement early. In the short term, all this will do is influence contract negotiations. However, while 08′ and 09′ remain covered, this opens the door for 2010 to be an uncapped year and then possible labor unrest.

This doesn’t have anything to do specifically with the Seahawks, but it is an important issue for the entire NFL. Expect the next year to filled with lots of posturing by both sides, but in the end, I expect a deal to get done before 2010. The parties involved aren’t fools. They have created several safeguards that will bring both sides to the negotiating table sooner rather than later. While the term “uncapped year” makes it sound like a financial windfall for players, it could actually be the reverse. Lets take a look.

First off, there are really only a few owners who have shown the willingness to operate will little financial constraint. Dan Synder and Jerry Jones are the two that come to mind. What often gets glossed over is that with an uncapped year, the minimum spending amount disappears too. Far more teams have shown that if given the chance, they will be more than willing to put a lesser product on the field to save money and turn a profit. Tampa Bay was 40 million!!! under the cap this year. They looked around like they would be big players in free agency, but overall spent very little. Mike Brown, owner of the Bengals, will be the name kicked around a lot when this is talked about. He is notoriously thrifty, and would probably be happy to field a low payroll team over a winning team if given the chance. I know Bengal fans feel he already is. The point is that an uncapped year will likely be a cash windfall for a few, but a financial squeeze for mid level guys. This is something the union should be aware of.

The other problem with an uncapped year is that it changes all the rules. Right now, players achieve unrestricted free agency after 4 years and restricted free agency after 3. One of the safeguards in place to get the union to negotiate is that these rules change. No player would be a unrestricted free agent in 2010, unless they had 6 years of service time. They would be restricted if they had less. What does this mean? Well in a way, it is going to not only lessen the number of UFA’s, but lower the money spent as well. A six year veteran is usually nearing 30 years old. The history of paying 30 year old free agents big money has been a 50/50 proposition at best. Use Shaun Alexander as an example. While running backs have a shorter life than most positions, it seems as more often than not, age effects the amount of guaranteed money the player gets. It works much better for teams and players, if the big free agent money goes to players in their prime, not two years later.

Finally, in the coming negotiations, there will undoubtedly be a lot of talk about the 59% of revenues that the players are receiving. The union says they won’t be giving any of it back. It may take a work stoppage if the owners are really seeking to reduce that number. However, it is possible that the owners may be seeking other changes that would make that percentage more palatable. This came from the league press release….

“There are substantial other elements of the deal that simply are not working. For example, as interpreted by the courts, the current CBA effectively prohibits the clubs from recouping bonuses paid to players who subsequently breach their player contacts or refuse to perform. That is simply irrational and unfair to both fans and players who honor their contracts. Also irrational is that in the current system some rookies are able to secure contracts that pay them more than top proven veterans.”

This paragraph directly addresses two issues that are paramount to the future of the league. The first reference is to the decision that the Atlanta Falcons can not recoup the 20 million dollars they paid to Michael Vick. This is going to be something that the owners will want a resolution to. If they are handing out huge bonuses, they want guarantees that the money is well spent. There have been too many cases lately of players, who get big bonuses, getting in legal troubles and subsequently handicapping the team financially. It affects both the bottom line and the salary cap. This needs to be fixed.

The other reference in this release goes directly to the need for a rookie salary scale. Right now the system is broken. Just about everyone but Gene Upshaw agrees. It is absurd that top picks get handed more guaranteed money than players who have been solid starters in the league for several years. In reality, it makes NFL life even more difficult for rookies. Not only do they have to learn how to manage a brand new lifestyle, but they are immediately resented in the locker rooms. On top of that, at a time when they should be working harder than ever, there is no longer a financial carrot in front of them. They are essentially set for life. This is my guess why top picks are only successful about 50% of the time. It takes a special player who can continue to focus and work at the same level because of something inside of them, not because of the eventual reward.

What you can see, is that there are more issues at stake that just what players are paid and what owners make. It would seem that it is equally important to the owners that they have reasonable tools in place to secure the big money investments they do make. Hopefully the CBA safeguards in place, designed to get both sides to the table will ensure that these issues get dealt with sooner rather than later. Any type of labor strife may take a huge bite out of the popularity of this league. Just ask baseball or hockey. In the end, the NFL will be OK. They have handled sticky situations before, and because it they have created a golden goose. Nobody should be interested in killing it off.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.