Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

Posted on: April 25, 2011 6:43 pm
Edited on: April 25, 2011 6:56 pm
 
Posted by Will Brinson

As you may have heard, the NFL lockout has been lifted. Now, hell breaks loose in terms of free agency in the NFL. Well, it will soon anyway -- once the NFL imposes a set of rules (presumably, the ones from 2010) in which the offseason should operate. Don't expect that to happen until after the NFL has maxed out its appeal/stay options. 

The problem that presents itself for the owners is that they're in a bit of a catch-22 here, because for legal purposes, they don't want to find themselves colluding against the very players ... who sued them for collusion.

See, there are a pile of free agents -- more than 500 of them -- out there who would really like to start negotiating contracts with teams. And those teams, or at least the guys who run the football operations of the teams, would probably like to start signing players in order to fill holes on their roster. (Especially those teams with quarterback needs.)

However, the teams are also named defendants in the Brady v. NFL case, which means the folks who run the business side of things are unlikely to be extremely thrilled about any sort of cooperation with the players until said lawsuit is resolved.

If -- and again, this is predicated on no stay being granted -- the NFL institutes last year's rules, the season "begins" and for some reason none of those free agents are signed, it would lend great credence to the allegations that there's collusion taking place between the teams.

That won't necessarily happen, though it's absolutely a possibility.

Which means the NFL and its teams needs to tread carefully in order to avoid compromising themselves in the anti-trust lockout that will sit in the background regardless whether or not the "football season" begins.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 8, 2012 4:49 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

in simple terms seriously will need to for example you produce a great deal of really good considerations coupled with evidently will be able to build a not many options to include things like found in shortly after that right away when just about every few days.


hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 3, 2011 9:04 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



tomlye
Since: Nov 28, 2011
Posted on: December 1, 2011 12:54 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Oct 28, 2006
Posted on: June 11, 2011 6:44 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

Beautifully said.!!!



Since: Jan 31, 2007
Posted on: April 27, 2011 1:00 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

Aggie 56 seems to have all the answers except how the league responds to growing demands for compensation from former players who are living out their golden years with the effects of their former careers; How the league deals with the growing liability for current players for head injuries--which I'm sure is practically free; There's also the issue of parity--something that keeps fans in most cities interested in the NFL. Look at the Timberwolves or the Pirates or the 18 other teams in any European soccer league and you will immediately see how important parity is to the popularity of the NFL.

And since when do employees get to decide how much their employers make?

This is a difficult labor disagreement, and the collectivists can continue to apologize for the bad-faith bargaining the players have engaged in, but it doesn't make the excuses true. Neither side has dealt from the top of the deck, but unless we are going to allow the state and the oppressed workers to unilaterally dictate the terms of a labor agreement, owner have as much right to bargain as players. And that is what this is about--watching as two sides, both of whom have dug into their own positions, try to find some common ground to make a deal that works as best as it can for both sides.

The players can choose to walk away from the game. The owners would have a much more difficult time walking away from their investment in the professional football business. And they would be fools to continue in an agreement that doesn't deliver what they believe is a fair return on their sizable investment.



Since: Oct 12, 2006
Posted on: April 25, 2011 10:31 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

So where does the profit sharing end? I said they are talented and get compensated very well for their talents but again it is the owners taking all of the financial risks. JaMarcus Russell was guaranteed over 40 million in his rookie contract before he even played a down in the NFL, so how did that investment work out for the Raiders? He is not the only first round bust in the NFL just an example of the financial risk the owners take. Tell me how much do the players pay for their workout facilities or the stadiums they play in? How much money do they pay for all of the travel they do during the season? The answer is none, the owners cover all of these expenses because they are the business owners and it is part of their job as owners. Even though the players are the end product they are still the employee that gets compensated quite nicely for their work. Like I said in the end everyone will lose out especially the common fans who will no longer be able to afford to go to the games because of the increased tickets prices! I say if the season is a bust because of the possible strike no matter how the judge ruled today all of us FANS should boycott the games when they finally decide to play and show both the owners and players who the real boss is!
-----------------------------------

---------------------------------

First off......No one forced the owners to give Russell a deal with $40 million guaranteed.  I believe Chris Johnson was in the same draft but signed a contract deal that he vastly outperformed.  I beleive his rookie contract was something like $12 million dollars.  When he complained that he was vastly underpaid and wanted a new contract folks like you on this board and others said too bad a contract is a contract.  It's funny how you weep for billionaires signing bad contracts but you scream tough luck when someone with considerably less does the same.

Also with Chris Johnson the Titans received a lot more monetary value by having Johnson put up pro bowl numbers while playing on an average running back's salary.  The Titans also received additional financial value in gate attractions, merchandise sales etc from Johnson's prolific first 3 years.....So what I'm saying is don't cry for Raider's Management for giving up $40 million to Russell if you have no problem with a pro bowl/all pro back like Johnson having to play on a below market contract (In which management enjoys significant monetary value due to having a pro bowl back playing at below market value).

As far as workout facilities and the stadium the players play in yes the players pay a portion for them.  Less you forgot the last CBA agreement the players agreed to allocate the first $1 billion of revenue towards expenses such as stadium up keep and other expenses rather than have it calculated in the total revenue percentage to be split amongst the owners and players.


It's so rediculous that this dispute has been going on for this long and written about endlessly yet folks like you don't understand how the NFL really works.



Since: Oct 12, 2006
Posted on: April 25, 2011 10:13 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

Great so the players win and in the NFL in the long term is now screwed beyond belief.  Salaries will keep increasing.  Rookies are gonna be pushing 100 million dollar signing bonus before to long and the owners are expected to keep quiet and slowly go bankrupt funding the players endless party.  Good job judge.  Many of the owners are business first and owners second.  Soon it's going to get to the point that good/smart owners are gonna see this is no longer a good business and nothing but an endless money hole and look to sell their teams and move on.  Ticket prices will go up to cover expanding player pay and  the fan will get jacked in the end.  Teams like the Jags, Tampa, and others will soon be on the selling block.  Am I thinking to doomsday?  Get back to me in 10 years and we will see.  What I see now is the writing on the wall for the NFL and contraction in the future.  Footballs a game but the NFL is a business.  If you don't make a profit you move on and find something else.  Hope the players are ready to step up and start buying and running clubs. 

Signed
Disgusted Fan
-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------


Disgusted Fan maybe you should also change your name to clueless fan because you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.  First since player salary is directly tied to revenue salaries go up when overall revenue goes up and down when overall revenue goes down.  In fact the deal the union and owners had before was a partnership deal meaning owners got a certain percentage of the pie and players got another percentage.  It's similar to me and you agreeing to purchase a McDonald's and me saying you get 60% and I get 40%.......So if you get $10,000 this year and then next year you get $50,000 guess what?  I'm happy and doing backflips because that means I total revenue is up and I receive more money this year than next year. 

With that in mind even if rookie salaries push $100 million the group that would be hurt the most would be the players because as an owner you pay the same total amount of money to the players year after year.  The only thing that changes is how the money is allocated.  For example if the salary cap for a given year is $80 million and the price of signing rookies goes up then the salary cap doesn't increase.  It still remains $80 million.  What happens is money allocated for signing veterans decreases and money the team allocates for signing rookies increases.

What's also telling to me is the owners never complained about player salary because being business men they knew anyone else with a rudimentary understanding of business and the NFL business model (this excludes you sir) would call them on their bs.  What the owners argued is that because of the rising cost of growing the business they needed more money.  Which they could plausibly argue without getting laughed at since the money they received for expenses is a fixed amount and isn't calculated as a percentage of revenue. 

I've actually spelled out in detail why your post makes no sense using facts (mainly just reiterating how the expired CBA worked) so if you respond try to do the same and leave your emotional bs at the door.



Since: Apr 25, 2011
Posted on: April 25, 2011 9:41 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

The owners did not have to guaranteed JaMarcus Russell the 40 Million.  The CBA does not mandate any guarantee's.  Also it was the owners who selected JaMarcus Russell, they did not have to select him.  The player give the owners 1 Billion Dollar off the top to pay for their expenses and stadiums.  So your answer none is not correct.  Yes player get compensated quite nicely for their work as being the best players which compensatation can end very quickly.  The player are not asking for more that they get now, so it will not affect any increased tickets prices.  There can't be a strike, because there is no union.



Since: Apr 25, 2011
Posted on: April 25, 2011 9:10 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

So where does the profit sharing end? I said they are talented and get compensated very well for their talents but again it is the owners taking all of the financial risks. JaMarcus Russell was guaranteed over 40 million in his rookie contract before he even played a down in the NFL, so how did that investment work out for the Raiders? He is not the only first round bust in the NFL just an example of the financial risk the owners take. Tell me how much do the players pay for their workout facilities or the stadiums they play in? How much money do they pay for all of the travel they do during the season? The answer is none, the owners cover all of these expenses because they are the business owners and it is part of their job as owners. Even though the players are the end product they are still the employee that gets compensated quite nicely for their work. Like I said in the end everyone will lose out especially the common fans who will no longer be able to afford to go to the games because of the increased tickets prices! I say if the season is a bust because of the possible strike no matter how the judge ruled today all of us FANS should boycott the games when they finally decide to play and show both the owners and players who the real boss is!



Since: Dec 19, 2006
Posted on: April 25, 2011 8:54 pm
 

NFL has free agent quandary with lockout lifted

These aren't some guys flipping burgers at McDonalds or a woman working on an assembly line in Detroit.  The difference between the NFL and mostly every other job on the planet is the employees ARE the final product.  So please, don't try to compare this to your life or another situation.  Most of us work in jobs that produce/sell something; the NFL players ARE the production as well as employees.  The idea the NFL players should get paid the same % of revenue as a car salesman or tree trimmer shows a lack of understanding about the situation.  That's not to say the players are right or the owners are right, I guess the courts *sigh* will decide that now.  Fundamentaly, this is much different than almost any other labor dispute.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com