Blog Entry

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

Posted on: May 9, 2011 12:27 pm
Edited on: May 9, 2011 4:33 pm
Posted by Josh Katzowitz

UPDATED 4:32 p.m. ET: From the Twitter account of NFL spokesman Greg Aiello:

"Re: reports that if forced by courts to operate w/o consent of players, rules for 2011 could be different than 2010 rules: here is our reax: Our goal has at all times been the same – to operate under a negotiated set of procedures that are agreed to by the clubs and NFLPA. The current litigation has created a significant amount of uncertainty and we are therefore considering a wide range of alternatives depending on developments."


Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal reports that the NFL is working on free agency rules for the 2011 season that “would be very different from 2010.”

As Kaplan writes on Twitter, though, no decision has been made to go forward with those potential new rules. And if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals does not overturn Judge Susan Nelson’s lockout injunction, the NFL still could choose to revert to the 2010 rules if and when it has to begin the 2011 calendar season.

The biggest difference in the 2010 free agency rules was that a player had to wait until after his sixth year before he became an unrestricted free agent (as opposed to after four years in the previous salary-capped seasons). For players who had four accrued seasons after 2009 and would normally have become unrestricted free agents, a reversion to the 2010 rules for 2011 would be the second-straight season they would be restricted in their free agency.

As the NY Times reports, the ending of the lockout also could allow the NFL to create more stringent drug testing rules, because there would be no union to stop it.

Roger Goodell already is on record as saying he wanted blood testing for human growth hormone, and this might be a good opportunity for him to do it (even though many players would vehemently disagree with that decision - unfortunately for them, they have no union to negotiate on their behalf).

“Our thought has been we have always been looking to make our program as effective as it can be,” an unnamed N.F.L. executive told the Times. “There have been some things, H.G.H. is one of them, that the union has resisted. When we get to the point where there is not a party involved, maybe we should consider what we consider important to keep pace with science and trends.”

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

Category: NFL

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 8, 2012 7:42 pm

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

We establish out basically some thing amazing in thoroughly distinctive weblogs natural. It then simply because operates a smallest diploma scenarios unique to perceive copy on all the other people and in addition see everything their own. Thank you for swapping.

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 3, 2011 12:02 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Jul 21, 2008
Posted on: May 10, 2011 2:21 pm

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

The NFL and the players are partners.  This was established in the revenue sharing.  The NFL is not like a privately owned company that has profit sharing. It is also not like a publicly traded company that cannot have profit sharing but matches 401k contributions.  The players want to see the books because they are partners and you are asking them to share in less revenue because you are losing money.  The NFL would not mind the players seeing the books, they just do not want the other teams to see the books.

Players salaries after their first contract are based on not what they are worth but what it will cost the team to replace them if they go to another team.  The salary cap is good for the owners because it attempts to keep competitive balance and keeps the owners from their own bidding wars for players.  Without a salary cap the NFL would look a lot like baseball in a few years.  However, the NFL salary cap also comes with a salary floor.  Without that teams that are not competitive could just cut payroll and pocket money based on the shared TV contract money and shared memorabilia sales. 

It is a complex problem with no one right answer.  Some fans do not like free agency because of the potential to break up dynastys.  However, free agency allows a player to play for a team of their choosing. 

I still think Roger Goodell was a bad hire.  His job was to make sure the NFL did not get into this mess.  I think D. Smith was a bad hire.  Once a lawyer (not a former player) was hired as head of the NFLPA I knew this was headed to court. 

Since neither party can seem to negotiate in good faith, I hope the court rules in such a manner that both parties feel the pain and realize it would have been better for both to have settled this earlier. 

I have some ideas but neither party would be pleased.
I love to watch football but if there was no NFL season, I am sure I will find something else to do with my time. 

Since: May 10, 2011
Posted on: May 10, 2011 1:41 pm

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

I have a question for you..You say that there will be 2500 more plaqyers to take their place..OK would you pay $45-150
 to go see a second or third level QB play instead of a Peyton Manning or An Aaron Rodgers??
 I'm not siding with anyone but lets just get the darn thi9ng settled so we can see the BEST football players on the field

Since: Jul 10, 2007
Posted on: May 10, 2011 1:19 pm

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

There will ALWAYS be players. Fire these players and there will be 2500 more ready to put on a jersey. the players ARE just labor. Not only can they be replaced, they are replaced constantly. That was even the basis of their argument to life the lockout -that their careers are so short and time missed will be irreprible.

Since: May 31, 2007
Posted on: May 10, 2011 12:05 pm

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

irregardless, you must be as stupid as your name. You missed the entire point of my comment. It's nobody's right to have any job but it sure as hell isn't a privilege that is just handed to a person.

Learn the definition of privilege before you start talking smack. There is no privilege involved in being paid a high salary for a job that you perform well.

You're a typical hater who is upset with NFL players because they make a lot of money to play a game you would play for free and you're jealous that you'll never be able to make the NFL because you just aren't as talented as the players are.

If you care so little about money, then do whatever crappy job you no doubt have for free. It's a privilege that you have that crappy job so you should just take whatever your boss gives you and never question or ask for any more money.

This is almost as stupid. Players are the labor, and it ends there. The game is the product, and the owners are the stakeholders.

You must be a moron, you do realize that without the players their is no product. The players are the labor and the product you fool. The owners actually provide the least of anything. They don't pay the players out of their own pockets, the money for player salaries come from the TV Network deals, they barely provide any money to build the stadiums the teams play at, that usually comes from tax payers at the most they borrow huge amounts of money to buy the team and then sit back and watch the dollars roll in.

Since: Jul 9, 2009
Posted on: May 10, 2011 11:35 am

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

The article says that the owners could impose new drug-testing procedures that the players couldn't oppose because of the lack of a union to negotiate for them.  But (1) who says players wouldn't sue over it, just like they sued over the lockout itself?  Of course, there might be some delay, and they might not win, but who knows?  (2) If the courts issue a final determination lifting the lockout, how long do you think it will be before the union re-organizes, in which case it will be able to negotiate the drug-testing procedure?

Since: Mar 7, 2009
Posted on: May 10, 2011 11:21 am

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

People that are siding with the players are more often than not doing so because they are the angry ones and want to see someone get over on their bosses. You appear to be one of them.

And people who side with the owners are likely those opposed to card check and revel in cheap labor...

Dumb generalization huh...yea so stop doing that...

This is almost as stupid. Players are the labor, and it ends there. The game is the product, and the owners are the stakeholders.
*Buzzer sound* wrong answer.. Most likely where you work you're the labor .. the players are both labor AND the product. Sure the jersy's sold are NFL jerseys but they have TOM BRADY's name on them. I'm not a New england fan but tune in to see Brady NOT the patriots.

Dumb. The owners can make money in the NFL, and to do so they must correct the mistake of paying players too much, more than they deserve for what they do. They are doing that. You don't seem to understand business.
Wrong it is you who don't understand buissnes. These owners have a silver spooned install base and the biggest sport in America. If they can't manage to turn a profit either hirring a compatant front office or SELL THE FRANCHISE.

There's more than enough money to go around both sides are on my nerves but it'sthe owners that started this nonsense. Remember Baseball & Hockey thought they we're hot stuff to and both nearly tanked..

Get it together..

Since: Sep 5, 2006
Posted on: May 10, 2011 10:23 am

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules


i almost completely agree with you, almost. viewers also tune in to see their team. player's success in many cases is because of the team they're on. basically, neither side can exist without the other. the players are the product. the team is also the product.

i just don't buy into one side being more deserving than the other. that said, the owners need to be profitable in order to make their team a success and to keep ticket prices as low as possible. (that's also dictated by supply and demand) still, if the players' salaries continue to rise, the prices to the fans will continue to rise until the fans stop paying. it's better for fans to keep the players' salaries within reason, unless you enjoy dropping boatloads of money for the "product".

back to the original point. fantasy football has created more rooting for individual players, but it's still the teams that create who you root for and against. for instance, a new york jets fan will never purchase a tom brady jersey. it doesn't matter how great a 'product' he is for his team. again, neither side exists without the other.

Since: Nov 18, 2010
Posted on: May 10, 2011 9:46 am

Report: NFL working on new free agency rules

Players are the labor, and it ends there. The game is the product, and the owners are the stakeholders.

I disagree with this statement completely.  The NFL product is the players in conjunction with the game.  When marketing the NFL the owners use the players names, faces, jerseys, the numbers associated with these players.  The NFL does not say, "here is football, watch it"  they say "tune in to see Tom Bradey and Ray Lewis square off to see who will come out on top".  The product that just got marketed was two players in that one example.  The NFL is not like most businesses that have employees manufacturing products, these players are the product themselves.  Notice that the NFL jerseys get sold with players names and numbers on them that is the product the players' names and the number associated with them.  They do not sell jerseys saying "football" or "NFL".  Sorry but they are selling player, players' names/numbers, and marketng those same players aka "the products". 

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