-
-
-
2010-2011 Off-Season: CBA – From Cannot Bargain
At All To Could Be An Agreement?
-
- July
19, 2011
At 12:53 AM CST
By Eric M. Scharf
-
- The NFL owners and NFL Players
Association (NFLPA) appear to potentially be on the cusp of a new
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) sometime within the next few
days. Before the CBA drama officially becomes yesterday's news,
there are a handful of related issues that require deeper exposure .
. . to show they are not nearly as complex as has been advertised by
various player and owner representatives.
-
- Who Came First – The Owner
Or The Player?
You could be completely disinterested in professional sports . . .
and you would still be able to logically rationalize the existence
of sports players before the existence of sports team owners.
Natural athletic skill was put to casual use and manual labor long
before it was ever recognized and organized into professional sport.
You would still be able to logically rationalize the existence of
good quality, naturally skilled sports players before the existence
of sports team owners.
You would still be able to logically rationalize the existence of
steadily growing wagers on those sports players by those would-be
sports team owners.
You would still be able to logically rationalize the existence of
“research” – performed on those sports players, where they commonly
played the game and the level of interest from the local yokels – by
those would-be sports team owners . . . on what it might take to
organize, host, attract fans, and profit from an American football
game.
You would still be able to logically rationalize the existence of a
“test run” game – where those sports players were paid for their
playing time (for the first time in their lives), where those local
yokels were made to pay for access to that game (which they used to
watch for free) . . . and where those would-be sports team owners
made a large enough profit to arrange even more games.
You would still be able to logically rationalize the existence of
the desire by those would-be sports team owners to actually become
sports team owners – offering low per-game payouts to those sports
players (who could not believe they were being paid to play several
of the games they loved) and offering high per-game tickets to fans
. . . who would rather pay than lose access to the game they have
learned to love.
The money-making potential and popularity of American football
ramped up from there – even though it could have just as easily
failed as the relatively unknown stepchild of the marriage between
rugby and soccer. American football certainly took time to become
the big dollar behemoth it is today, but it is here to stay . . .
apparently regardless of how high ticket prices continue to get for
the average fan.
While the player came first, this fact is woefully insignificant to
the owner who – even after some historic gains by the player's union
– still has near-complete control over the game, its
participants, and its fans.
-
-
The Free And The Brave
Americans recently celebrated the anniversary of one of the most
important days in the history of the United States. That day was the
4th of July – otherwise known as Independence Day.
The United States national anthem – The Star-Spangled Banner – is
sung or performed at an incredible number of entertainment venues on
a yearly basis but never quite so strongly as on Independence Day.
The lyrics for that song end with:
“And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”
Most citizens of the United States – fans and non-fans of the NFL –
interpret the ending of The Star-Spangled Banner to be about gaining
freedom from tyranny to do whatever you wish . . . and being brave
enough to defend that freedom whenever it is being challenged.
While the individuals and institutions of America have the freedom
to fail or succeed, to be short-sighted or forward-thinking, and to
be mature or moronic at any moment . . . common sense remains the
standard bearer for all interpretation.
The NFL owners and the NFLPA – not so ironically – are yet the
latest in a long line of big business entities to be unimaginative
in their interpretation of the ending of The Star-Spangled Banner.
The NFL owners and the NFLPA had freedom – years ago, in fact – from
shortsighted greed of the moment to build a revolutionary long-term
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with each other. They had the
freedom to be brave enough to defend such an extendable and
rewarding commitment whenever it was being challenged.
Freedom is power. Freedom means nothing without the will to use it.
Protecting a freedom is not enough if you are not going to use it.
Demanding protection for a freedom that goes unused is itself an
abuse of freedom . . . or of power.
While politics have always had a “unique” way of determining which
individuals and institutions get to enjoy which freedoms, the
politics of profit have always operated on a separate and much
faster track.
People – fans and non-fans of the NFL – around the world accuse the
NFL owners and the NFLPA of being greedy in their inability to agree
on how to split a projected yearly profit pie of approximately $9
billion dollars.
The NFL owners have been accused of taking liberties in establishing
a lockout of the NFLPA due to alleged financial losses from a
“suddenly” imbalanced CBA . . . product quality notwithstanding (SEE
any team – like the Dallas Cowboys – that underperformed in 2010).
People should understand the NFL owners and the NFLPA are, in fact,
not greedy at all. Call the owners and players lazy, misguided, and
even stupid, but calling them greedy is disgracing the definition of
greedy.
Greed•y/ˈGrēdē:
Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing
to possess more than what one needs or deserves.
-
- If the NFL owners and the NFLPA were truly greedy, they would have
never allowed themselves even the smallest chance to be exposed to a
work stoppage . . . ever.
If the NFL owners and the NFLPA were truly greedy, they would have
never agreed to introduce a “poison pill” in their last CBA . . .
allowing the owners to back out and lock out over a percentage
discrepancy to which they knowingly committed themselves.
Stoppage Sources
-
- Fans should consider the basic-but-big components of the grand NFL
existence that can change enough on a regular basis to create
scenarios for work stoppages: (1) the discovery of potential new
revenue sources, (2) greater profit than expected from existing
revenue sources, and (3) the infrastructure cost of maintaining
product quality.
The combination of other important but secondary components – such
as (4) professional grade referees, (5) stadium grounds keepers, (6)
stadium security, (7) officially-licensed NFL gear retailers, (8)
stadium concession vendors, (9) stadium parking staff, and (10)
stadium waste management teams – come close but not close enough to
actually creating full blown unrecoverable work stoppages.
The NFL owners are far more willing to deal with alternatives to
these secondary components . . . than they are willing to revisit
the idea of scab players. There were never enough Erik Kramer
discoveries to offset the embarrassment of games played by non-union
members.
While each of the big-but-basic sources can be unpredictable, there
can and should be triggers within the CBA that allow work to
continue uninterrupted as each of these components are addressed in
parallel . . . with pre-determined representatives for the NFL
owners and NFLPA members who wish to be fully involved.
The importance of limiting the number of cooks in the kitchen can
never be understated when it comes to the proper and professional
formulation of labor agreements . . . at any level.
“Potential” New Revenue Sources
do not always translate into “immediate” profit. Most potential new
revenue sources begin as simple ideas – marrying one business
group’s promotional desires to another business group’s
promotion-capable products.
These ideas must be vetted by the principals (NFL owners and NFLPA)
– as even the very best entrepreneurial ideas get tossed aside due
to the discomfort (or fear of change) of one or more principals of a
business group. Market analysis must be performed (to see if there
is, indeed, a marketplace for the idea).
Seed investment (if any) must be determined. Financial projections
must be presented by market analysts (who diligently follow the
daily market performances of the promotion-capable products being
considered). Potential partners for product marketing,
manufacturing, and distribution (in-store and online) need to be
recommended, vetted through would-be partner presentation bids, and
ultimately chosen.
Risk assessments must be readied – as businesses generally do not
like to take chances and like them even less in a struggling
economy. The idea may look, feel, smell, and taste like an absolute
winner – and it can be both considered and brought to life without a
work stoppage . . . but, then, the NFL owners and NFLPA have the
freedom to select success or silliness.
Greater Profit Than Expected
does not have to receive a second thought – as long as the NFL
owners and NFLPA agree to a specific percentage split for that
surplus. The true key to dividing any profit surplus is less about
the percentage split and more about a binding acknowledgement that
each entity has the freedom to take their share and do what they
wish.
Most experienced business people understand this simple percentage
split only becomes complicated if the profit surplus becomes greater
and greater with the passing of each fiscal year. This unpredictable
fact can easily be solved through a PEP (Proportional Escalator
Percentages) talk.
The owners and players can easily agree on a top-to-bottom list of
PEP – no matter how ridiculous the potential financial figures –
that will automatically trigger with each landmark profit surplus
that is achieved. The PEP talk can be both considered and brought to
life without a work stoppage . . . but, then, the NFL owners and
NFLPA have the freedom to select success or silliness.
Most experienced business people also understand this simple
percentage split can become even more complex if either entity
places a directive on the unpredictable profit surplus.
The NFL owners and NFLPA would never be lazy, misguided, and even
stupid enough to use their freedom to fund something as mammoth as
new stadium construction or something as immediately necessary and
urgent as comprehensive medical coverage – through the hope but not
the guarantee of a profit surplus . . . or would they?
Fans have learned how badly large corporations want out from under
big ticket items like medical coverage – even when the very
infrastructure and quality of their product (like NFL players)
requires such an investment.
Infrastructure Costs
– like new stadium construction and comprehensive medical coverage –
are obviously enormous when it comes to a business entity like the
NFL. The key to supporting such costs lies in the realistic and
reasonable identification and acknowledgement of any and all such
costs. Shortcuts – with these types of mega costs – must be a sure
thing or you are looking at a truly epic fail.
Discussing such costs at a high level – in the absence of an
in-depth and detailed perspective – is no discussion at all. How can
you hope to understand the true cost of such an exceptional grid
iron venue – like Cowboys Stadium – for NFL players and fans . . .
without acknowledging the incredible variety of business and
entertainment events it must support in order to help Jerry Jones
see a quicker return on such a gargantuan investment?
How can you hope to understand the true cost of such exceptional
medical coverage for NFL players . . . without acknowledging how
quickly injuries can change from manageable to career-ending, or how
some of those injuries can become literal money monsters as part of
retirement coverage – potentially for hundreds former players?
Infrastructure costs need to be supported from the NFL’s core
revenue streams (like the sickeningly sweet network and satellite
television contracts) and traditional investment partners (from
public to private and from bond-driven to cash-on-hand) . . . but –
reasonably – never from profit surplus. Infrastructure costs can be
discussed among mature adults who wish to leave no stone unturned
towards solid, long-term infrastructure support . . . but, then, the
NFL owners and NFLPA have the freedom to select success or
silliness.
Wealth Above Health?
Fans should wonder about the NFLPA’s sincere interest in
comprehensive health coverage for active players, and recently
retired players, as well as the first and second generation players
who helped make today’s NFL possible.
Would the current crop of NFL players (outside of the top 10
percent) really care so much about their own medical coverage right
now – if it were not for the noisy and logical racket desperately
being made by so many first and second generation retired NFL
players?
NFLPA representatives and sports agents know better and understand
what a good medical plan can do for active and retired professional
sports players but – until recently – neither group had any interest
in asking the NFL owners to take some of the money normally paid out
in salary . . . and repurpose it for health benefits.
NFLPA representatives (with some still being active players) do not
want money being taken out of their feedbags, and sports agents –
unless I am mistaken – do not realize any take home pay from the
implementation of comprehensive long-term health coverage. Sports
agents certainly want the best for their meal tickets, but upfront
money remains the best kind of money.
-
-
- After all – as long as the current players are getting paid at least
$340,000 for the upcoming 2011-2012 season, they should be able to
put away (or invest) enough money to fund their own health coverage
expenses in retirement.
Yes – the thought of most NFL players rubbing two pennies together
in any effort to invest or save is absolutely hysterical.
Yes – the thought of a financial advisor insisting NFL players rub
those pennies together is more realistic – but how many active
players always listen to their financial advisors? Furthermore – how
many active players are potentially being swindled by those very
same financial advisors who have only the best interests of their
meal tickets at heart? But . . . I digress with another story for
another day.
What an American soldier – currently fighting for our country in the
Middle Least or retired with crippling injuries – would do for the
type of long-term comprehensive medical attention at which the NFL
owners are about to throw even more funding? Time spent in a VA
hospital for a major knee operation – not performed by the world
renowned Dr. James Andrews – might change an NFL player opinion or
two.
The NFL players potentially get their heads concussed, their knees blown
out, and their rotator cuffs torn once a week during a 16 game
season. 1st and 2nd generation NFL players dealt with many of the
same injuries . . . with nothing even close to the medical attention
received by today's players. America’s armed forces, on the other
hand, potentially get their bodies
dismantled every day of every week until their tours of duty are
completed successfully, ended through injury . . . or terminally cut
short.
The NFL players are free to make as much money as they want – and
after they have engorged themselves on enough cool cash . . . maybe
they will find a way to appreciate what they have and place health
before wealth.
-
- Fans can rest assured that at least
the retired NFL veterans – many of whom so desperately need the
potential infusion of additional retirement medical funding being
considered as part of a new CBA – have their priorities straight.
18 Games
It is true the current 16-game NFL season continues to produce an
increasing number of injuries – especially to the top players in the
league.
What happens when star players go down? They are replaced with
back-ups. These back-ups may be:
1) Another starter who is acquired through a salary cap-destroying
blockbuster trade who rides in on his white stallion with his
chrome-plated shoulder pads to save the day.
2) A former starter who can jump into the fray with a little rust
and a lot of attitude and help pull out a victory with
partially-diminished natural skills.
3) A veteran or rookie role player who is not and has never been
mentally or physically prepared for anything more than playing the
gunner or long snapper on special teams.
The NFL is not going to allow any of its players to start bulking up
on performance-enhancing drugs – at least not publicly – so that
star players can recover faster from injury.
No fan enjoys seeing a star player replaced with – typically – a low
grade back-up. That back-up – on the very next play – usually and
most often misses his assignment . . . which turns into a sack for a
loss, an intercepted pass returned for a touchdown, a
fumble in the red zone, or a dropped catch that could have kept the
chains moving.
-
-
- Fans have heard plenty from a number of NFL star players –
raising issue with how an 18-game season would cause more injuries and ruin
careers.
This is true . . . if you have a problem sharing playing time.
Star players know the chances of starting all the games of the
current 16-game format are tough enough.
Star players know the chances of their back-ups “stealing” playing
time (and incentive money) in the current 16-game format are slim .
. . but possible.
Star players – those who really are all about being a good
teammate – know their teams will win more games if their
understudies are more capable of playing when injuries occur.
Nothing is more valuable to a rookie or a back-up than playing time on any given Sunday.
Star players know exactly what an 18-game season could mean to their
careers, the personal growth of their understudies, the potential
increases in wins for their team . . . and the negative effect on a
star player’s incentivized earnings and personal statistics.
The NFLPA does not want the NFL owners suddenly drooling over the
idea of “running back by committee” for every position on the
roster. Then, again, fans do not like seeing their favorite players
going down in a heap before the season is over.
If the fans really want their TEAMS to succeed, then, they might
also see the logic in a longer season that results in more balanced
playing time between superstars and back-ups.
Fans can now only ponder what might have been . . . as the concept
of an 18-game NFL season was officially (but only temporarily?) shelved early in the ongoing CBA negotiations.
NFL superstars – for now – get to keep their 16 games . . . as well as the
growing specter of more injury-shortened seasons and careers.
The Rookie Wage Scale
The NFL owners have had so much control over the game of
professional football for so long and yet – like the CBA silliness
of today – they managed to allow the little detail of signing
bonuses to get completely out of control.
The contract of a first round draft choice is – after all – a
completely different story without a signing bonus, and the same
goes for a veteran player.
Thanks to our very own Jerry Jones, the NFL established the “Deion
Sanders Rule” when Jerry took advantage of a salary cap loop hole to
sign Neon Deion to a $35 million dollar contract . . . including a
$13 million dollar signing bonus. Deion certainly proved he was worth
the mega money in helping the Cowboys to their third Super Bowl victory
in four years in the ‘90s.
-
-
-
-
- Was Deion's deal the first one to be
caught and tabbed as toxic? No. Did this occur as
aggressive retribution by certain teams (having run into their own
roadblocks attempting the very same thing) which had no interest in
seeing the Cowboys reload with Neon Deion for a fourth straight
title run? Yes.
Since that time – and forever more –
whenever a team circumvented / circumvents the salary cap with a bad
player contract, that team pays the price . . . twice – with any
signing bonus being converted into "dead money" that gets
accelerated into the immediate or following fiscal year upon that player's early
exit from the team (whether by cut or retirement – if memory
serves). Cowboys fans got another Super Bowl championship out of
this Sanders snafu, but the residual effect on salary caps for years
to come certainly has ruined it for the rest of the league . . . as
well as their own star-spangled team.
Deion’s agent at the time could have cared less – even if he knew
the loop hole was going to cause grief for owners and players alike
in the future. His job was to get Deion the best possible deal –
just like any other agent for any other professional sports star. It
still would have been profound and impressive if Deion’s agent would
have put the brakes on the deal in an effort to make it legit – out
of concern and protection for future blockbuster deals . . . and
meal tickets.
Deion was still a relatively young man when he signed with the
Cowboys back in 1995 – but not so young that he could not have said:
“Wait a minute. I love me some me, and I love me some money, too. Is
this deal really legit like my man Hammer . . . or is this going to
come back and bite the entire league in the butt in the future?”
Deion’s deal was deemed not so legit – after the fact . . . and
Hammer never knew when to quit.
Stephen Jones – Executive VP, COO, and most trusted son of Jerry –
attempted to convince his father to give up on signing the shining
one . . . over related contract concerns. Stephen must have been so
convinced there was no other way to rearrange the contract terms, or
he probably would not have wanted to punch his father in the face,
as Jerry has gone onto recall many times.
No one forced the owners to offer guarantees (or partial guarantees)
in the form of signing bonuses. No one forced the owners to offer
top 10 rookies such huge contracts. Who were the veteran players and
agents to stop the owners from paying out big money to their own
teammates and clients? After all – everyone was eventually going to
receive that big money, right? Wrong.
Once the veterans and their agents understood how negative the
impact was going to be – towards their collective earning potential,
salary caps, and roster flexibility – by these professional mega
deals for inexperienced college happy meals, they decided a rookie
wage scale was finally in order.
Call them lazy, misguided, and even stupid, but they are not greedy.
The NFL owners had the most control for the longest time. The NFLPA
had some control but only enough to be irritating. Their collective
agents have always been master manipulators in the middle. None of
these entities – separate or together – ever made an effort to
refine the concept of signing bonuses before it was too late.
“Too late” technically does not exist, as the owners and players can
still remedy the signing bonus issue through a new rookie wage scale
. . . if they really want to do so. Call the owners and players
lazy, misguided, and even stupid, but calling them greedy is
disgracing the definition of greedy.
-
-
- A rookie wage scale has evidently been agreed upon as part of a new
CBA, but until it is signed into anti-trust, err, NFL law – with
rookies having to earn more of what they are given . . . and with
proven veterans getting more of what they have earned – fans should
not hold their breath.
-
- Free Agency
-
- Speaking of proven veterans getting
more of what they have earned, the NFL owners have been less than
willing to be timely in their handling of a number of free agency
cases in the past . . . and in the present – with players like the
San Diego Chargers' Vincent Jackson and the New England Patriots'
Logan Mankins.
Most fans are familiar with the
"franchise" and "transition" tags NFL teams are allowed to apply
each season to select players.
Most fans are also aware of how
those tags are aggressively used by NFL teams to limit the escape
routes of talented players who may either be unrestricted or
restricted free agents. Teams – understandably – want to hold onto
all of their best talent as often as possible . . . even if they
have to play dirty to do it.
General Managers, head coaches (with
roster control), and talent evaluators from scouting departments are
always under tremendous pressure to find ideal players and the fewer
quality players you need to procure – to add to or replace on your
roster – the less stress you must endure. Yes – "that is why they
get paid the big bucks" . . . but that does not make their jobs any
easier.
Free agency – ideally – should work
similarly to the following scenario.
A team has an established, talented,
and healthy player who is up for unrestricted free agency. The
player is still young enough to command a big contract if he is
allowed onto the open market. The player would like to remain with
his current team – for the right price – of course.
The player understands his team may
slap the franchise tag on him . . . guaranteeing him a one-year
salary equaling an average of the top five salaries at his position
in the league. The transition tag, however, "only" guarantees him an
average of the top ten player salaries at his position.
His team wants him to sign the "one
year tender" to buy both parties additional time to draw up a
mutually beneficial long-term contract. Time passes and his patience
is rewarded with a big pay day and several more years with the same
team. The contract contains a number of easily achievable incentive
clauses – which essentially provide "voidable years."
This is particularly good if the
team needs to free up additional salary cap space by adjusting
existing player contracts . . . or if the player suffers an untimely
injury that just happens to coincide with a major incentive he has
reached. Bad for him – in this case – and good for his team.
What if the player does not want a
long-term contract (as a result of failed and embarrassing
negotiations), and he does not even wish to sign his tender offer
and does not wish to show up for work – until just late enough in
the season to cause problems for everyone involved? Then you see the
situations in which Jackson, Mankins, and there respective teams are
currently embroiled.
Other parts of this scenario include
negotiations with and offers from other teams – as well as the
original team's right to match any offer or to collect two first
round draft choices from the player's new team (which has a tendency
to scare off less-than-desperate interested parties).
The transition tag – in this case –
only allows the original team the "right of first refusal" (where it
has seven days to match a competing offer). If the original team
chooses not to match the offer, that team receives nothing in return
for losing that player.
Ultimately – a good fan does not
want to see a good player held hostage by their favorite team if a
new deal cannot be reasonably worked out to the point where everyone
involved has some level of satisfaction. It is hard to imagine fans
wanting the current brand of NFL parody to really cut so close to
the bone that you can only confidently align yourself with a team's
logo . . . rather than the star players who may have given that logo
meaning in the first place.
Then, again, the league has appeared
to be heading that way since the NFLPA first won the right to
conditional free agency. A team may be on the verge
of reaching the Super Bowl, and it does not want to relinquish
anyone from the roster (who might just prove to be the missing piece
to their championship puzzle) – not even a player who has absolutely earned the
unrestricted free agent status he will have reached at season's end.
If a deal cannot be reached and the
player – for any number of reasons – becomes embittered, that team
needs to be willing to face the same reality that player already
sees. The team can and will attempt to change the player's mind, but
this effort can and will make things even worse . . . creating
unnecessary stress with other teammates (who want to see the
distracting issue put to bed before it gets really bent out of shape
by the press).
Sometimes – maybe rarely – the
player decides the money is not the issue as much as his
surroundings no longer being a fit.
The grass is not always green on the
other side, and NFL free agency can be as painful as it is exciting.
It will be very interesting to see
how-if-and-when settlements (cash payment or immediate and
unrestricted free agency) are set forth for players like Jackson,
Mankins, and others – once a new CBA is ratified.
-
-
-
-
-
- It will be even more interesting to
see if Jerry Jones can land another impressive 21 in the poker game
of NFL free agency. He has a handful of backfiring blue chips – in
Marc Colombo, Leonard Davis, Roy Williams, and Marion Barber among
others – to push towards the pot. Cowboys fans can only hope lightning strikes
nice twice . . . with awesome Asomugha helping the Dallas secondary
to rise from the 2010 ashes just in time to flame the 2011 offenses.
-
- Tag! You're It!
-
- Everyone wants a solution to the way
franchise and transition tagging is worked out. Fans want their
favorite players to stay with their favorite teams. The players want
good money from good teams that offer good opportunities to win a
good deal of the time. Teams want their best players to remain
within their organizations until the twilight of their careers.
Agents want their meal tickets to go to the highest bidder – every
single year if possible.
-
-
- Before identifying a solution, however,
you must acknowledge a variety of familiar scenarios:
1) A player wants a long-term deal with his existing team. No muss,
no fuss – “My family and I have planted strong roots in this town,
we love this organization, and I want to retire with this team.” The
player’s team feels the same way – “We know what he has meant to
both our team and the surrounding community in just his first few
years in the league. He is a special player, and we want to continue
this wonderful relationship for years to come.”
2) A player wants a long-term deal with a new team. “I have really
enjoyed my time with the organization, and I am proud of what we
have accomplished together, but I think it is time for a change of
scenery. My family and I are looking for a fresh start.” The
player’s team does not agree with this, but due to a possible
combination of elements conspiring against any change of heart –
stagnant negotiations and a younger, nearly as capable, less costly
option currently riding the roster – the team obliges the player’s
request. “This player has done great things for our organization –
both on and off the field – and while we would prefer he remain with
us, we will make every effort to seek fair value from another team
in exchange for his services. We wish him nothing but the best.”
3) A player wants nothing more than the one-year tender – where a
limited commitment will allow him and his agent to comfortably
survey the league landscape of available and potential opportunities
(where a position he may covet on a specific team may be affected by
the impending retirement of the incumbent player there). The player
does not want a trade, and he just prefers to pay his final dues
towards unconditional and unrestricted free agent status. The
player’s team begrudgingly acquiesces, but it will make every
attempt to trade him during the season before losing any chance to
recoup his value from another team – as is their right.
4) A player wants no new deal with any team, and he simply wants to
see his unrestricted free agent status honored. He and his agent
want to test the open market, and they wish to figure out the next
move on their own timeline. The player is convinced he needs a fresh
venue. He does not like the direction in which the team is moving –
or the systems they are using. He may no longer even see eye-to-eye
with the team’s coaching staff. The team does not agree with the
player’s assessment, and they are less than thrilled at the
proposition of losing a player of his experience and skill without
receiving something of near-equal value in return from another team.
The team wants him to honor his contract in return for their
agreement to revisit his request at the completion of his contract.
The negotiations have been contentious, and the player’s agent has
hinted at a hold out – maybe even retirement – if the player’s
demands are not met. Public mud-slinging ensues and both parties are
equally guilty of sabotage.
These are the most cliché and prominent of NFL free agency scenarios
– although a variety of franchise and transition tag derivatives
also exist, and they all must be reviewed before establishing an
effective rule to make the tagging system – and its effect on free
agency – far more efficient.
There is, in fact, a solution to the issue of disenfranchised
players - who have specifically been franchise tagged - and the NFL
teams which naturally want their players to honor their contracts,
acknowledge their tagged status, and keep a minimum safe distance
from the rest of the league.
There would be a new free agency rule
called "The Donald Sterling Rule" . . . or "The Disser" (DSR) for
short - as the result will leave either the player or the team
feeling dissed.
Donald Sterling (the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers) - of course
- is the Mike Brown of the National Basketball Association (NBA). As
accurate as the label might be to call it the "The Mike Brown Rule,"
his fellow owners would never allow such a name . . . out of respect
for his late father, the great Paul Brown.
Nonetheless, the DSR requires an NFL team to follow all possible
good faith steps towards signing one of their own unrestricted free
agents upon which they have applied the franchise tag designation.
The player in question – and his representation – must follow the
same steps.
A one-year tender (guaranteeing an average of the top five salaries
for that player's position – using a franchise tag as an example)
must be offered to sign the player. That one-year tender will
include contract language plainly stating a promise by the NFL team
to immediately commence negotiations on a long-term deal.
3rd party arbitration – from the same state of New York as the NFL
headquarters – would be used to enforce and track the actions of all
parties in this process. The NFL and NFLPA would select from an
available pool of vetted 3rd party arbitrators and assign that
person to one case at a time – as they arise. Multiple arbitrators
will be assigned when multiple cases are active. The absence of the
Minnesota Supreme Court – as will allegedly be the case if-and-when
the new CBA is ratified – greatly encourages the NFL to comply with
the DSR.
If the player’s team makes a
more-than-reasonable long-term offer (average of top 5 salaries or
better) and the player chooses not to sign – based upon one of the
four scenarios addressed above – then, his inaction triggers one of
the following DSR results.
Result 1: If the player has, indeed, signed his one-year tender (and
has shown no interest in a long-term commitment with his original
team), he must play through that one-year tender. He will then be
given his unconditional unrestricted free agent status upon
completion of that season. While a new team can trade for the
player, that new team – like the original team – has only to the end
of that season to re-sign the player. That new team will be unable
to apply another franchise tag to the player – as that would
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Result 2: If the player has refused to sign his one-year guaranteed
tender offer - and he resorts to "belligerent public behavior
detrimental to his team and the league" (not including a
holdout) in order to accelerate his
way out of Dodge, the player is immediately barred from his teams’
facilities and placed onto a "Free
Agency Slot Track" (FAST) supplemental draft.
The
FAST draft is designed for players – who wish to completely short circuit
an NFL team’s right to apply a franchise or transition tag to a
player at least / at most one time while under that team’s employ.
The FAST draft is also designed for NFL teams – who wish to unfairly punish a
player for seeking the freedom (or wanting the freedom he has
earned) to sign any CBA-regulation contract with any team in the
league. Recall Randy Moss and Brandon Marshall – when they caused so
much grief for the Minnesota Vikings and Denver Broncos,
respectively. Recall Al Davis’s ridiculous treatment of Marcus
Allen.
The FAST draft – when the NFL player is in the wrong – allows the
"worst to select first," where the selecting team forfeits a 1st
round draft pick from a future draft to the original team (just like
the current supplemental NFL draft). If the team that signs the
player has no available 1st round draft choice in one or more of the
following drafts, the original team has the right to accept a lesser
package of one 2nd and one 3rd round draft choice – rather than
being forced to wait one or more years to finally receive the 1st
round draft choice.
Recall the Minnesota Vikings giving
up three 1st round draft choices, three 2nd round draft choices, one
3rd round draft choice, one 6th round draft choice, and 5 veteran
players . . . just to get their hands on Herschel Walker and a few
other picks in return. Recall the Dallas Cowboys giving up two
consecutive 1st round draft choices for Joey Galloway, and recall
the Atlanta Falcons giving up two consecutive 1st round draft
choices (and five picks overall) for Julio Jones in the 2011 NFL
Draft. You never know when a team is going to be without their 1st
round draft choices or for how many years this may be the situation.
The FAST draft – when the NFL team is in the wrong “having knowingly
attempted to damage a player's earning potential through dishonest
contract negotiations" – allows the "best to select first," where
the selecting team does not forfeit a draft pick from a future
draft, and where the original team is barred from participation. The
original team is also subject to the loss of a 2nd round pick in the
following NFL draft, but this is at the discretion of the NFL
Commissioner – with guidance from the 3rd party arbitrator.
Whether the player ends up FAST drafted by one of the better or
lesser teams, the team that drafts the player cannot use their
franchise tag until after they have successfully signed him (within
the current regular season – no matter how much of the season
remains). This encourages both parties to get an efficiently-crafted
new contract out of the way of what becomes the far more critical
issue: learning and becoming comfortable with a new playbook. Play
terminology and system schemes are not always similar from team to
team . . . and if the player does not catch onto the new system,
this fact can really make that great new contract feel like cement
shoes at the bottom of the ocean for all involved.
Money is nice and having some is even nicer - especially in the
current economy - but most professional sports stars will tell you
it is far better to count your millions from the practice field of a
winner than a perennial loser. Talk about "making your bed and
sleeping in it" if you are a player unfortunate enough to have
forced your way into the FAST draft. You could be going somewhere
FAST or nowhere FAST.
If the unfathomable happens, and the player goes unselected in the
FAST draft, he must sit out the remainder of the season (whether it
is part or all of the season). If the player is the cause of his
participation into the FAST draft, he will receive no salary during
the time he must sit out. If the player’s original team is the cause
for his participation, however, the team must pay the player a
pro-rated amount of what would have been his one-year tender during
the down time (and all of the one-year tender if he must sit for the
entire season. The player – either way – will be unrestricted to
negotiate with any interested team once the season is complete and
the off-season free agency period begins.
If the equally unfathomable occurs,
and there are multiple players available for the FAST draft (due to
multiple player / team infractions), the original teams are barred
from selecting their own players, but they are free to select the
other players.
The DSR, The Disser, The Donald Sterling Rule . . . encourages both
the team and the franchise-tagged player to engage in the most
professional and efficient contract negotiations possible. The
success of those "no muss, no fuss" negotiations help ensure both
parties get what they desire: a long-term and fruitful commitment to
each other (before any part of the communications can begin to
deteriorate).
If one or both parties fail to engage professionally and in good
faith, the DSR becomes a poison pill to one or both parties. One or
both parties will get dissed by "The Disser." A lesson is taught -
and hopefully learned to the point where teams and players
rarely-if-ever allow themselves to make the same mistake twice. No one likes being dissed . . .
especially in public, where these dramas somehow always end up
playing out.
-
-
- The franchise tag - and to a lesser extent, the transition tag -
have simply become an excuse for NFL teams to take their time with
long or longer-term commitments with some (but not all) of their top
players. The tags are meant to serve a more urgent purpose - rather
than as a "deal with it later" security blanket. Tags used to be the
last resort - rather than the first resort - for a team to protect
itself against the loss of talented personnel.
Tags should always be followed with a sense of urgency towards a
greater commitment between players and their teams. The DSR would be
a solid deterrent to the torrent of tagging silliness that continues
to torture teams and their talent.
It Is Still About The Fans
I have gone to obnoxious lengths to point out how ridiculous it is
that the NFL owners and NFLPA ever allowed labor strife to get this
far . . . or exist at all. Call the owners and players lazy,
misguided, and even stupid, but calling them greedy is disgracing
the definition of greedy.
I have gone to equally obnoxious lengths – in past articles – to
point out how gutless the NFL fan base has become in the face of a
laundry list of professional, public, and private blunders by owners
and players alike.
-
-
- While the owners continue to be known for their occasional
“misstatements” (SEE Bud Adams), did anyone notice how many times
NFL players were either arrested or asked to appear in court during
the ongoing lockout (when many fans hoped to see true professionals
representing the NFLPA)? Common sense dictates the players were
probably warned by their own union chief to stay off police blotters
at all costs during the entirety of the still ongoing lockout – to
ensure the fans had one less reason not to side with the NFLPA
against the owners.
The other side of common sense dictates the players could not have
stayed off police blotters if you paid each of them $1 million
dollars . . . per day. The owners would certainly have tried to
sling mud – drawing attention to the players’ almost daily romper
room activities – but probably backed off for fear of being called
elitist by fans who have come to expect and accept prison yard
behavior by quite a few (but not all) NFL players. But I digress . .
. because fans – by and large – only care about what occurs between
the hash marks.
I love the Dallas Cowboys football organization – as much as any
other diehard Cowboys fan.
I romanticize about the historical achievements of America’s Team –
as much as any other diehard Cowboys fan.
I live for the day when those historical achievements once again
become achievements of today with the current team – as much as any other
diehard Cowboys fan.
I am willing to put up with “warped” player behavior as long as it
does not affect or prevent their on-the-field performance – as much
as any
other diehard Cowboys fan. A suspended Cowboy – after all – is a
useless Cowboy.
As The Tortured Cowboys Fan – and a known perfectionist – I am,
however, unwilling to give the Cowboys, the greater NFL, or the
NFLPA a free pass for allowing themselves to get into their current
labor mess . . . and any number of other mini dilemmas their
potential “Great New Deal” may still not address.
The players have always maintained they just wanted to show up for
work (while changing absolutely nothing about a CBA that – for the
first time in NFL history – paid out more to players than owners, if
memory serves). The owners have always maintained they just want to
stop losing money (while showing no physical proof of their losses
to the courts or the players).
Both groups made weak appeals to the fans – expecting the fans to be
naive enough to fall for the tragic vision of a panhandling owner
waving around a diamond-encrusted tin cup . . . and a homeless
player holding up a gold-trimmed cardboard sign that reads “Help me
feed my
family!”
The fans never fell for either argument, but the fans never called
the collective bluff of the NFL owners and NFLPA, either. The fans
talk tough – with some even threatening to stop attending games –
but they always cave in (unlike my father who stopped watching years
ago). “Just give us our football!”
NFL ticket prices will continue to increase . . . and the behavior
of NFL owners and players – to each other and towards the fans –
will continue to be boorish and less than acceptable. Whenever the
NFL owners and players have sounded sincere in the dedications to
the fans, it has almost always degenerated into lip service.
Fans found out early how the owners were expecting to tap a $4
billion dollar war chest of network television money – and how the
courts wracked the owners’ knuckles with a metal ruler when they
were found to be irreparably damaging the players’ ability to
collectively bargain.
-
-
- Fans found out late how the players were expecting to receive
approximately $200,000 each – through an insurance plan – if the
upcoming season was never realized. The owners – after allegedly
learning of this plan last Thursday – suddenly kicked into a higher
gear to bring the recent forward motion of CBA negotiations to a
mutually beneficial close.
I find it hard to believe the owners only learned about this plan on
Thursday . . . rather than sooner through at least one player who
was willing to talk in exchange for an undocumented pre-season
bonus. But I digress . . . because fans – by and large – only care
about what occurs between the hash marks.
It is still about the fans . . . but the fans continue to make it
clear they want nothing to do with the responsibility of holding the
NFL and its constituents to higher social standards.
“Just between the hash marks, Ma’am” – Sgt. Joe “Football Fan”
Friday. So-be-it. Game ON.
Are the NFL owners and NFLPA brave enough to put their freedom to
maximum use with a well-planned, forward-thinking, long-term, and
flexible collective bargaining agreement . . . or are they going to
abuse their freedom by not using it at all?
Will the NFL owners and NFLPA be a
successful blueprint – for U.S. politicians – on how to compromise
on a grand plan?
Will NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell
and NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith be nominated as
Co-Nobel Peace Prize Winners if that happens?
Fans are ready for some football, but will it finally start with any
preseason games?
We shall see. We always do.
|
