Home

Draft

Rankings

Picks

Audio/Video

Ask the Doc

Archive

There has been much talk, or rhetoric, about the current CBA which is set to expire on March 1st of 2011. Of course, some of it is true and and well-known to the owners, players, and fans. However, there are several finer points that are much less understood by the latter two. What's sad is that many aspects of a possible lockout are not being presented properly to the players so as to forward certain agendas by player representatives and leadership of the union. Now, much of the blame should fall on the individual players for not researching the fallout from this probability, but union members placing their trust in their leadership is nothing new, regardless of the industry. Here's a look at some of the most important issues that will come up if, or more assuredly when, the lockout occurs.

As stated above, the current CBA is set to expire on March 1st of 2011. However, in May of 2008, the owners voted unanimously to opt out of the deal after the 2009 season, a right granted to them in the extension negotiations of 2006 (the original was drafted in 1993).  The extension also called for 2010 to be an uncapped year, which was the first misunderstood ideal that the players bought into hook, line, and sinker. It's true, after the upcoming season, owners will be able to spend as much as their hearts desire. The prospect of Daniel Snyder and the Washington Redskins becoming the George Steinbrenner and New York Yankees of football could very well be realized. Also, fans of the Dallas Cowboys, New York Jets, and New York Giants could be beneficiaries of this as well (all three of these teams are opening billion dollar-plus stadiums within the next year, though, and may struggle financially if they cannot sell the reportedly outrageous ticket prices that will accompany their new digs to their fans). And if you think fanatical fan bases are immune to this, just ask the Yankees and Mets, who are struggling to sell out their expensive stadiums with successful teams playing in them.

On the other hand, there will be no cap-floor, either. This means that if the Bidwells decide that they want to go back to their old ways of paying their players the absolute minimum, according to the agreement, and simply hoarding as much money as possible, they will get away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist. In these trying economic times, anyone who thinks that most teams won't follow that model are simply being naive. Many fans and players will point to the fact that the NFL is the most financially secure sports league in the world, which is true. But let's not forget that the owners (except for Ralph Wilson of Buffalo and the co-operatively-owned Green Bay Packers) made their money in other industries, and probably didn't do so by throwing around money that they weren't required to. Thus, National Football League teams may very well start operating like their baseball brethren, with a third of the league spending twice as much as the rest of the teams.

There are a couple of things that the players need to get a grip on. First, with an uncapped year comes an added year of tenure a player will have to serve before he becomes a free agent - six versus five. While that doesn't sound like a long time, remember that the average player's career is only 3.5 years long. So, they will be tied into another year of having to play under whatever salary the drafting team chooses to pay them, which will inevitably be less than what they would make on the open market. Second, in a salary cap-less NFL, playoff teams will be limited as to the number of players they can sign and the amount to which they can sign them. While those numbers are not clear, they will certainly have more constraints to deal with than non-playoff teams. Therefore, if the "big money" teams make the playoffs in the previous year, players hoping to sign with them better hope that they are on that particular general manager's short list of candidates.

The most important issue that the players are overlooking is the benefits part of this deal. Some of the more frivolous extras that will be discontinued are tuition reimbursement and club contributions, or matching, to their 401K plans or annuity funds. But, the players also stand to lose their basic health coverage, supplemental disability benefits, severance pay, and the relatively unknown "88 plan", which provides financial relief for players who procure mental disabilities resulting from playing football. All they have to do is look at many of the retired players (with whom they are also squabbling) and the recurring health issues they suffer from, to realize how important some of the coverage they're now taking for granted will be after they've stopped playing. Many retirees are spending thousands upon thousands of dollars per year on trying to alleviate their aches and pains before they turn 40. And, once again, with the average football career lasting just over a few years, that means that most of the current union participants will be paying a large portion of what they make through the league to doctors charged with mending their usually broken bodies.

Another factor that players will have to deal with in the coming years is President Obama's new tax plan. If approved, every roster player in the NFL will take on an added tax burden, since deal or no deal, they all make over $250,000. When added to the aforementioned costs, it makes it even more imperative that the union do whatever it can to keep a similar collective bargaining agreement in place.

Be that as it may, DeMaurice Smith and most of the player representatives are taking a hard line stance to the upcoming negotiations. In their short-sightedness, they think that the owners are actually afraid of this scenario, when in fact, it is one for which they are hoping. They need to remember that most of the owners were not happy about the current agreement, but were somewhat talked into it by a lame-duck commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, who was more concerned about his legacy than making sure there was an agreement in place that would benefit both sides. In short, the owners are tired of giving up most of their profits to the employees and paying rookies large sums of money when they haven't taken their first NFL snap. Moreover, the owners will use the country's current financial landscape as an excuse to play hardball with the union and as a tool to sway public opinion in their favor.

In conclusion, it seems as though the players' union is about to kill the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg. If they're smart, they'll go to the negotiating table realizing that they are going to have to give up more than they'll take. In particular, a rookie salary cap and conceding some of their share of the revenue (currently at about 61 percent). If they don't take this approach, they'll be playing right into the owners' hands and will eventually fail. Hopefully, the players will soften their stance, so in the end, the fans aren't the ones who suffer the most.