If owners opt out of CBA, what will happen?

[Wassit3]

NFL owners are strongly considering opting out of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement with its players union during the league's spring meeting Tuesday in Atlanta, FOXSports.com has learned. Here is a question-and-answer about the impact such an action would have in the short and long term:

Q: What are the immediate ramifications?
A: None for the next two seasons. The salary cap would be abolished in 2010. The CBA would then officially expire in early 2011.


Q: Why are NFL owners set to opt out of the CBA?

A: Team owners believe the current labor agreement, which gives players 59 percent of the league's annual defined gross revenues, is too lopsided in favor of the NFL Players Association. Those same owners approved the CBA by a 30-2 vote in March 2006 (Cincinnati and Buffalo were the only dissenters).

Franchises are still turning a profit, but not nearly as great as under the previous labor agreement. For example, FOXSports.com's John Czarnecki reported that the St. Louis Rams — a franchise valued by Forbes Magazine at $750 million — cleared only $10 million in 2007.

Q: Why opt out of the CBA now?

A: Under CBA rules, owners had until November to opt out of the agreement. But taking that step now makes sense. This may trigger early negotiations toward what will be a lengthy and complicated process. Plus, the CBA will become much less of an in-season distraction that would detract from on-field news.

A: Doomsday scenarios that would greatly damage both sides. The thought of a 2010 season without a salary cap is frightening for the NFL's small-market franchises. But there are also CBA mechanisms that negatively affect player freedom to change teams. The amount of service required to become an unrestricted free agent would jump from four to six seasons. Teams could use one franchise and two transition tags to try and restrict movement of their top players. Some playoff teams also would be subject to spending limits unless they lose some of their own players in free agency. Such clauses were designed to bring both sides to the bargaining table.

Q: What is the worst-case scenario?

A: The first NFL work stoppage since 1987. NFL owners could try locking out players in 2011. The NFLPA is prepared to counter by decertifying as a union, which may force teams to welcome the players back. Arbitration is also a possibility if NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw can't spearhead a new deal.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8146990

[ohms_law]

I've had a sneaking suspicion that there was going to be a strike in the NFL for the last few years. I'm betting it happens.

(not that I really care, one way or the other)

[Arctic Blast]

Another big thing going on on the owners side is the growing fissure between small and large market owners. The salary cap has finally reached levels that the shared revenue for each team from leaguewide business and TV deals doesn't cover it any longer. Meanwhile, large market teams that can go out in to the local area and make large money local deals on the side are throwing massive signing bonuses around that small markets are finding it increasingly hard to match.

In the past, the large market teams were willing to give up a little for the good of the league, a prime example being the Giants under the stewardship of the Maras. Now, you have a new breed of owner...Jerry Jones in Dallas, Bob Kraft in New England, Dan Snyder in Washington...who ISN'T willing to compromise anything for the good of the league. The small markets would like things to be evened out a little bit between the haves and have nots, while the large market owners are beginning to mimic the large market owners in baseball.

This was all going to come to the forefront very soon even if the CBA wasn't possibly up for one reason...the Washington Redskins. They have been pushing more and more owed money back for years, and very soon, the bill is going to come due. Essentially, they have been able to skirt the cap through legal ways, but to an extent no other team has conceived of. If all their owed cap amount were to come due right now, it would approach 90 mil. In other words, they wouldn't be able to field a team, which is obviously unacceptable. So, what do you do? (Incidentally, this is the reason the Skins so eagerly signed off on the last CBA, since it involved a drastic rise in the cap ceiling, and was the only reason they didn't have to cut half their starting lineup).

[lkcostas]

I hope they can work something out that keeps some salary cap system in place. It certainly makes a football season more interesting than a baseball season. There are only a couple of teams that you dismiss as playoff contenders in football before the season even begins, and that's because they're badly run, not because they're too poor to field a team.

As for the Redskins, if they crash & burn - so what? Let 'em. Let the system take them down if they've abused it. I think that happened to the niners too.

[gRYFYN1]

Well keep in mind that Gene Upshaw is a total tool, meaning if the players don't manage to get away from him, the owners will force another deal down thier throat eventually.

But, I can see know way that the players would play a game of chicken and risk a lock-out even though the owners have alot more to lose. I have to think that the cap as it is, can't stay (players main gripe is non-gaurenteed contracts) probably wind up with some form of NBA-esque Lux tax.

[Arctic Blast]

lkcostas : Problem is, the Skins, like em or not, ARE a marquee franchise. They're one of those teams that EVERYBODY knows about. Anyway, how exactly would a league go about having a team forced to sit out a season? What would happen to all the players currently under contract WITH that team...not to mention, every other person employed by that franchise? Could that team have cause to take the league to court, arguing that a league rule cannot be allowed to forbid a corporate entity from competing, or bar it from profit? It would be a very, very dicey situation.

gryfyn : I would say the players would have the upper hand, seeing as the owners would be divided in to 2 separate camps. This is, of course, assuming the players get rid of Upshaw. Interestingly, most of the drive for that to occur is coming from EX players...a lot of those guys who helped build up these league are getting absolutely hooped right now...they don't get a lot in pension money, they didn't make all that much when they played, and they're very, very physically impaired as a direct result of their careers. And Upshaw HAS come out and said that he basically doesn't care...his only focus in current players (which, to me, makes no sense...many of those retired guys paid in to the NFLPA as well...how can he now claim that he owes them nothing?!).

[ohms_law]

Could that team have cause to take the league to court, arguing that a league rule cannot be allowed to forbid a corporate entity from competing, or bar it from profit?

Yes, but the league would never allow it to get to that situation. If the Redskins allowed things to get that far, the league would do something (either a bail out, or more likely a temporary special rule).

most of the drive for that to occur is coming from EX players

And, even more interestingly, Congress.

[lkcostas]

lkcostas : Problem is, the Skins, like em or not, ARE a marquee franchise. They're one of those teams that EVERYBODY knows about. Anyway, how exactly would a league go about having a team forced to sit out a season? What would happen to all the players currently under contract WITH that team...not to mention, every other person employed by that franchise? Could that team have cause to take the league to court, arguing that a league rule cannot be allowed to forbid a corporate entity from competing, or bar it from profit? It would be a very, very dicey situation.

Why, are they talking about literally not being able to field a team? I don't think it works like that. I don't think they can forced to cut players to meet the salary cap, can they?

[shepster]

Will Jery Jones have troubble filling the new stadium about the time this here happens.

[Arctic Blast]

Why, are they talking about literally not being able to field a team? I don't think it works like that. I don't think they can forced to cut players to meet the salary cap, can they?

They are pushing so much cap debt back that it would amount to 90 mil if it all hit NOW. The cap is...geez, somewhere around 115-120, I think? Now, if they start operating sensibly, and slowly pay it down, they'll be fine. However, if Dan Snyder keeps spending like Paris Hilton with a smack habit, soon their owed money will be at or higher than the cap, and at some point, the bill comes due. You can only push it off for so long before you HAVE to start paying it down.

Truth is, nobody has EVER let it get as high as it is for them right now. Closest thing was the 49ers of the late 90's. They basically had to trade and release every notable player on their roster, and they STILL haven't recovered (though awful drafting and free agent signings since have certainly not helped).

Now, the 'nightmare scenario' seems to be fading since Washington is now actually USING their draft picks, rather than trading them away for vets, then re-upping those guys to massive contract extensions.

As for the league as a whole, the situation is this...they have until March to get a new agreement signed. If they don't, and if the owners don't lock out the players, 2010 proceeds with NO CAP AT ALL. And once that happens, it is going to be very, very difficult to put a cap back IN.

[gRYFYN1]

I doubt anyone in the Union or Owners will slaughter the golden calf at the alter of greed. A strike cannot, cannot happen.

Football is a consumer glut and rakes in massive ammount, there has to someone there who will realize that is a down economy, people will puke when they think of players and owner squabbling over million and millions of dollars.

This isnt the 87 strike, players make exponintally more now even in 94 the baseball strike was killed over rich guys bitching they dont make enough, and now players make 3-5 times that amount.

At the end of the it WILL get done, as for what changes there will be, who knows things like a soft cap, rookie salary structure, better player benifts, reduced % of revene to players will be the keys.

[ohms_law]

Most likely, yea. I think that everyone learned from the various strikes and lockouts over the last couple of decades that they only hurt the principle parties involved. No one wins. I doubt that negotiations will always be as smooth as the baseball CBA was last year, but I don't really foresee any strikes or lockouts. Interim agreements and much more serious negotiations are more likely.