Players Union Claims CBS College Sports Network Rejects Ad By Milton Kent Sports Media Writer http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/01/31/...cts-ad/?icid=maing|main5|dl11|sec1_lnk3|40675 An NFL Players Association ad, designed to push public support toward the union's cause, has been rejected by CBS College Sports Network, the union contends. George Atallah, the NFLPA's executive director, claims the one-minute "Let Them Play" ad, which was intended to run four times during Saturday's college football all-star game, was barred from the channel, which is operated by CBS, an NFL broadcast outlet. "Once they saw it and realized it had a CBA-oriented message, they decided they wouldn't air it," Atallah told the Associated Press. A CBS spokesman told the AP that the channel wouldn't have accepted an ad from the owners, either. An NFL spokesman said the league knew nothing of CBS College Sports' decision, had nothing to do with the decision and had no objection to anyone airing it. The current labor agreement between the NFL and the union expires March 3, though the owners have already opted out of the contract, touching off suspicions that they will lock the players out after the deal expires. The NFLPA-produced ad, now appearing on YouTube, shows an empty stadium with a padlocked gate, with unseen voices saying "Let us play' and 'Let them play.' NFLPA president Kevin Mawae appears in the ad, saying "We want to play," which also features the urging of viewers to sign a petition on the players' behalf. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith met Monday in New York to discuss and set up negotiating sessions. [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl9BpUgYljQ&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]
I honestly don't know what is going on. I know one of you wizards of such things can tell me exactly what each side is asking.
Well I AM a Jets fan after all so I'm known to root for the underdogs. I guess that would be the millionaires. :smile:
Not a guru but a simplistic breakdown: Owners wanted new stadiums and threatened to leave cities. Owners want to get rid of cap but want to pay players less. Players want health insurance and are opposed to 18 games. Players want more money. Owners want 18 games and same pay to keep profit margin up. Crying poverty
Essentially the biggest problem is that the owners want an 18 game schedule while giving nothing to the players. The players would be fine with making no changes, they are not actually asking for anything. However, they are asking, that if a change is made to an 18 game schedule, for more roster spots (I believe expanding from 53 to 55 creating 64 more jobs) or more guaranteed money for more work. It is completely reasonable to ask for more money if you have to work longer. In this the owners are completely wrong, and the players are right to not get screwed over. Listen, I understand most of these players are millionaires, but that does not give the owners the right to take advantage of them.
Also one important note Owners want rookie salary cap, players absolutely don't Quotes regarding this from the union: "The counter argument is there are a number of busts, but you also have guys who are late-round picks and outperform their contracts." "The reality is it seems like the league is asking the union to bail them out because of some of their bad draft choices," said Scott Fujita, another board member. The issue of rookie salary caps and other concerns of owners is leading to what some believe is a guaranteed lockout of the NFL in 2011. When DeMaurice Smith, current head of the NFL Players Union was recently asked if there would be a lockout for the 2011 season, he said this. "On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 14." "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said Friday. "The money should go to people who perform." Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract -- with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April. "He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said during a question-and-answer period at the end of a weeklong sports symposium at the Chautauqua Institution. "Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don't evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money. "And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." in this case, I think players are being greedy. How does it feel when players see Jamarcus Russell make more than a roster of players combined?
All the other stuff is just "stuff" to me. But the health care part I take issue with. Football RUINS those guys bodies, they should have health care for life for volunteering to get wrecked and probably live in pain forever to make the league all that $$$.
I don't understand why a rookie pay scale would bother the players union so much. If the rookies come in and don't make as much money, then more money is left to be allocated to the players who have proven they deserve it. So those 4th round guys who have proven they deserve a great deal of money can get paid for the first time, and get paid more (proportionally) since less money has to be allocated to unproven draft picks. I would think the NFLPA would rather the players who earned their money get paid the big bucks over rookies who havent proven they deserve to be on an NFL roster (gholston).
Court Ruling Lets NFL Owners Keep 'Lockout Insurance' TV Money By Dan Graziano Senior NFL Writer | Follow on Twitter: @DanGrazianoAOL http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/02/01/...v-money/?icid=maing|main5|dl5|sec3_lnk3|40826 NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith lost his attempt to block the NFL from using $4.5 billion in TV revenue as lockout insurance.DALLAS -- An NFL work stoppage grew a little more likely Tuesday when the players' union lost its bid to block owners from access to roughly $4.5 billion in guaranteed TV contracts. According to the league and the union, Special Master Stephen Burbank found that two of the TV deals in question (those with NBC and ESPN) violated the agreement between the two parties and awarded damages to the union. But the union had been asking that the $4.5 billion be held in escrow until a new collective bargaining agreement is negotiated, and Burbank declined to do that. The union immediately said it would appeal the decision, and the league declared victory. "Bottom line on TV case: A new CBA has to be negotiated at the bargaining table, not in the courtroom. Let's make a deal," league spokesman Greg Aiello wrote on Twitter. "If union commits to invest as much time and resources in negotiations as it has in litigation, a new agreement could well be reached by 3/4." March 4 is the date on which the current collective bargaining agreement expires. The union has said repeatedly that it believes the owners intend to lock players out once that happens, and they cite the TV deals that guarantee to pay off even if no games are played in 2011 as evidence for their claim. In the Special Master case, the union argued that the league gave additional benefits to TV partners in 2010 in exchange for the guaranteed payments for 2011. By doing that, the union argued, the owners violated their obligation to maximize the TV revenue they share with the players. Union spokesman George Atallah said Burbank did rule that the NBC and ESPN deals violated that agreement but declined to put the money in escrow. The union was hoping the money would be frozen and unavailable to the owners, thereby reducing the owners' leverage in negotiations. They have called the guaranteed TV money "lockout insurance," since they believe it would allow the owners to lock out the players and even cancel games without taking too much of a financial hit. "The Special Master, who is appointed by a federal judge, found violations of the Reggie White Settlement agreement with respect to the NFL's negotiation of Lockout Insurance in its contracts with ESPN and NBC," the union said in a statement. "Although the Special Master awarded damages, the players intend to file an immediate and expedited appeal before the federal court in Minnesota." The NFLPA declined to reveal the amount of damages awarded, saying the case had been sealed. Aiello, on his Twitter account, said that the union spent "twice as much on the case" as it received in damages, and called it "a small fraction of contracted TV revenue for 2011." The union believed it had a strong case and a good chance to win and was clearly disappointed. "Now for the good news," Atallah wrote on Twitter. "The NFL, until the appeal in Minnesota, still has ~ $4 billion to not play football next year. VICTORY! NFL's reaction to the result of this network case is like a team popping champagne after a preseason game." The ruling shifts the negotiating landscape in favor of the owners just days in advance of a scheduled Saturday negotiating session between the two sides. The back-and-forth on Twitter probably says more, though, about where things stand. A new deal by March 4 looks extremely unlikely, especially since the owners' incentive to get one done soon took a big hit with Tuesday's ruling.
per sportsillustrated: To help bring understanding and clarification to the complex topic of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the NFL released the following Q&A fact sheet: Q. When does the CBA expire should there be no extension to the agreement? A. In March of 2011. Q. Will there be a college draft in 2011? A. Yes. Q. What is the "Final League Year" in the current agreement? A. The "Final League Year" is the term used in the CBA to refer to the last year of the agreement. Without a further extension of the CBA, the "Final League Year" would be the 2010 League Year, which begins on March 5. Q. What are the differences between the "Final League Year" and any other "League Year?" A. The principal differences are that in the "Final League Year" there is no salary cap and there are substantial additional restrictions on player free agency and reductions in player benefits. Q. Are current player benefits affected in the Final League Year? A. We expect current player benefits to decline in the Final League Year. The union agreed that in the Final League Year, clubs would be relieved of their obligation to fund numerous benefit programs. Examples include second career savings (401K), player annuity, severance pay and performance-based pay. The total league-wide contributions to such plans in 2009, the last capped year, were in excess of $325 million or more than $10 million per club. Q. Are retired player benefits affected in the Final League Year? A. Commissioner Goodell has stated in a letter to the NFL Alumni Association Board of Directors that there will be no reduction in pension or disability payments to retired players during the Final League Year (2010). Since at least the fall of 2007, NFL owners have consistently agreed and planned that they will not reduce the funding for pension or disability benefits for retired players. Nor will they reduce funding for the 88 Plan during the Final League Year. Q. What determines an unrestricted free agent in the Final League Year (2010)? A. In capped seasons, a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent if he has four or more accrued seasons. In the Final League Year (2010), a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent only if he has six or more accrued seasons. An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any club with no compensation owed to his old club. Q. What determines whether a player is a restricted free agent in the "Final League Year?" A. In capped seasons, a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three accrued seasons. In the Final League Year (2010), a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three, four or five accrued seasons. The first refusal/compensation rights of restricted free agents remain unchanged in the Final League Year. Q. In addition to the right to designate a franchise (or transition) player each capped year, can clubs designate additional players in the Final League Year? A. Yes, one additional player can be tagged. In capped years, a club may designate a franchise player or a transition player. In the final league year (2010), a club may designate one additional transition player. A transition player must be offered a minimum of the average of the top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player's position or 120 percent of the player's prior year's salary, whichever is greater. A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no draft pick compensation from that club. Q. What is the Final Eight Plan? A. During the Final League Year, the eight clubs that make the Divisional Playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign unrestricted free agents from other clubs. In general, the four clubs participating in the championship games are limited in the number of free agents that they may sign; the limit is determined by the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs. They cannot sign any UFAs unless one of theirs is signed by another team. For the four clubs that lost in the Divisional Playoffs, in addition to having the ability to sign free agents based on the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs, they may also sign players based on specific financial parameters. Those four only will be permitted to sign one unrestricted free agent for $5.5 million (estimated) or more in year one of the contract, plus the number of their UFAs who sign with another team. They also can sign any unrestricted free agents for less than $3.7 (estimated) million in year one of the contract with limitations on the per year increases. In the case of all final eight teams, the first year salary of UFAs they sign to replace those lost cannot exceed the first year salary of the player lost with limitations on the per year increases. Q. Is there an Entering Player Pool in the Final League Year? A. There may be. The CBA provides that the league has the unilateral right to keep or eliminate the rookie pool in the Final League Year. Q. Is there a Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year? A. There is no Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year. The Minimum Team Salary in 2009 is $107,748,000, meaning each team is required to allocate more than $107 million to player costs (not including benefits). The team salary cap in 2009 was $123 million. Q. Are there individual player minimum salaries in the Final League Year? A. Yes, but they rise at a rate somewhat slower than player minimum salaries rise in capped years. Q. Do any player contract rules from capped years remain in place for the Final League Year? A. Yes, some rules like the "30% increase rule" are still in effect in the Final League Year for player contracts signed in capped years. That rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: a player with a $500,000 salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150,000 ($500,000 x 30%) beginning in 2010.
