A New Wrinkle In The CBA

by Chiefs

When it comes to the NFL labor dispute, its no secret whose side I’m on.  Under “political views” on my facebook page I pledge my loyalty to whichever party endorses my plan to have the NFL owners publicly flogged.  And I mean that.  If the “Carrot Top For President” party promised me a flogging they’d have my vote.  So while I may not have written about the CBA in a while, you can be sure it is still very much on my mind. 

(cut to a shot of me walking my dog.  I bend down to pick up her poo.  As I look at it, the brown turd fades into an image of Goodell and Clark Hunt shaking hands.  My good-natured smile slowly shifts to a scowl of rage.  Cue Willie Nelson’s “You Were Always On My Mind”)

I’m sure some of you are tired of hearing about collective bargaining, but I’m equally sure it still merits discussion.  This is an extremely important time for the future of the NFL.  Conflict can be the greatest initiator of progress.  It has often proven itself thus over the course of our history as a species.  Progress isn’t a foregone conclusion in this case.  It never is.  But this lockout has afforded us a unique opportunity to take a good hard look at what is really going on behind the scenes in the NFL.  We owe it to ourselves to carpe this diem.

If nothing the owners have done so far has made you angry, fine.  I don’t understand you, but I won’t question your right to feel how you feel, either.  We are different, and we think different thoughts.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Variety is the stuff of life.

One thing I’ve been trying to work on in recent weeks is not letting my dislike of the owners blind me to transgressions by the players.  In other words, to subject the players to the same scrutiny I subject my enemies the owners to.  I think its important to at least attempt this.  Too often in the blogosphere I see people accuse each other of making this political.  But when someone makes that accusation, its pretty clear they’re thinking along party lines as well, right?  Because if someone disagrees with their point of view, it must be politically motivated.  I’m not limiting this behavior to one side or another.  I’m just saying that wherever it occurs, its counterproductive.

more pontification from your boy Big Matt after the jump:

If the owners admitted wrongdoing, apologized for their actions, and appeared as though they were willing to do what it takes to start the season in a timely fashion, they would win me over.  Now, I realize the first two things seem impossible.  I’m just saying, the line does exist. 

We all like to think we’re on the side of truth, but truth doesn’t follow one side around and ignore the other.  It is, in my mind, theoretically possible for the owners to become right and the players to become wrong.  I think it highly unlikely, but there is a less than zero chance.  My support won’t be with the players no matter what they do.  It is with them now because:

A) The owners opted out of the old CBA.

B) The owners locked the players out.

C) The owners tried to claim they weren’t making enough money, but have been consistently unwilling to prove it.  We’re supposed to, I don’t know, take them on faith, I guess.  “I believe ‘em, yo.  I don’t know why, but I do.”

D) The owners violated their agreement, and thus broke the law, in their negotiations with the television networks, as ruled by Judge David Doty.

E) The owners are attempting to engage in an illegal lockout of the players, as ruled by Judge Susan Nelson.

F) The owners’ spin campaign has been aggressive, relentless, and I feel it insults our intelligence.  This is consistent with their usual modus operandi.  The players, on the other hand, seem confident that the truth (and law) is on their side.  Rather than fling desperate propaganda, they’re content to let the facts and the United States legal system do their talking for them. 

G) I was offended by Roger Goodell using a tragedy to shield himself from boos at the NFL draft.  And if you don’t think thats what he did, well, I don’t really know what to say to you.  You can invent excuses for Goodell if you want to.  I was there.  It was revolting.  Read Paddy’s article.  One thing I’d like to add is that the way Goodell blurted out “the storms…..in the South” was really pretty half-assed.  Despicable behavior like that will earn frowns from me no matter which side its on.  I’ve been critical of DeMaurice Smith too, but in my mind this was far worse than anything he’s done. 

H) On a personal level, I do not like the owners I’m familiar with.  Except ours, obviously.  He’s a real man of the people.  A modern-day Robin Hood, that one.  Except instead of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, he…..well, you see where I’m going with that. 

I) I pay my $ to watch the players play, not to watch the owners own.  Since Clark Hunt has contributed literally nothing to my enjoyment of football, I’m not inclined to take his side in this dispute.   

J) I don’t want to see all these Chiefs players that I love go through the same struggles other former players are currently enduring.  That would be heartbreaking to watch. 

Now, you may not agree with some of those reasons.  But one thing you’ll notice is none of them are politically oriented.  If you still support the owners, I’m not going to call you stupid, or attack your point of view as meaningless.  But I really would like to see your list of reasons.  And keep in mind, things like “they’re the owners, they can do what they want” and “capitalism is what made this country great” are purely political reasons.  The giveaway is that they can be applied to any labor struggle.  My reasons are all specific to this one. 

Maybe the players have engaged in slimy behavior and I’m just unaware of it.  In that case, let your boy know!  Tell me what the players have done that has offended you.  I will read your comments and consider them carefully.  I really will.  I’m giving a no snark guarantee on the replies, too. 

As I said before, I’m willing to change my tune on the owners if they admit wrongdoing and change their ways.  Are those of you who support them willing to be as flexible?  Is there a line that, once crossed, would cause them to lose your support?  I would imagine if they completely shut down the league that would probably do the trick, right?

According to Mike Florio, that may be exactly what they’re planning.

We’re hearing initial rumblings pointing to the possibility that a loss by the league at the appellate level will prompt the owners to completely shut down all business operations until the players agree to a new labor deal.  The thinking is that, if the owners cease all operations, the NFL would not be violating the court order because there would be no lockout.

As we hear it, the league accepts the reality that it will take a lot of heat if it pursues this path (and a lot of that heat will be emanating from this web address), but it could end up being the only way to squeeze the players into accepting the owners’ terms, especially if the Eighth Circuit agrees with Judge Nelson.

As of right now, this is just a rumor.  But if it does indeed come to this, I have to think that would be the final tipping point for any halfway reasonable/intelligent human being still supporting the owners.  This course of action would mean that after losing three straight rulings, the owners would still rather shut down the league than open their books or comply with federal law.  Think about that for a second.  Now think of a way to justify it.  I’m all ears.

Never miss a chance to get your fix! Follow Arrowhead Addict on Twitter and be sure to like our Facebook page.

Tags:

Comments
Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I LOVE football - I am an addict and it makes me really angry to see the owners trying to make more money - they're millionaires. BUT - in no other privately owned company would anyone expect the owners to show their books to the employees!!

I got excited when I saw this post, Big Matt wanting to hear from the supporters of the owners. However, it baffles me that you can write that you don't see anything wrong in what the players have done. Even Paddy was able to put down a few... are you really that brainwashed by the player spin, and the their twittering and facebook campaigns that you could not see their wrongs? If the players never left the table we would have a deal by now... plain and simple, every negotiation like this has set backs, deadline extensions, but when both sides stay at the table it gets worked out. The players started this by walking away, they intesified it by decertifying and then they brought it to this insanity by sueing the NFL. Take out any of those steps and no matter what the owners may have done, we would have a deal by now. The NFLs next step is to shut down the league entirely until a deal is reached "As I said before, I’m willing to change my tune on the owners if they admit wrongdoing and change their ways. Are those of you who support them willing to be as flexible? Is there a line that, once crossed, would cause them to lose your support? I would imagine if they completely shut down the league that would probably do the trick, right?" REALLY? I am on the side of the owners despite the fact that if the season started tomorrow, their would be no football, you think the fact that they give their marketing department the summer off I am going to jump ship. That is a PR ploy by the players, and you are so blind to it. What does it matter, their are no players playing football right now, I couldn't give two shits weather or not the NFL main office has its lights on. Why is it a big deal? Cause the players want everyone to believe it is. And you fall for all their bullshit. Hell to be quite honest I havent cared about the lockout either. Off season football is not that exciting anyway, as long as we have free agency, training camp, and a full 16 game season I couldnt care less. This lockout has not hurt football at all yet, it is all perception. Everyone wants to flip out, if the players get the sand out of their vaginas and got back to the table, we could resolve this and have football tomorrow. Then what have we really lost? Who will stop watching? Why are we still argueing about this, if this lockout is still in place come July, then lets start bitching, until then lets enjoy the offseason.

Big Matt, you had me at "I believe them yo, I dont know why, but I do." This should be required reading for every fan that loves to gobble up the slop the owners are serving. Well done sir!

Good article, good comments. Don't agree with a single word. At the level of money involved, the tv interests, the fans "undieing love" for players (lip service for "the game"), it is truly sad what we have got to. Then we have the issue of after the agreement. We will just be jumping for joy about running out to the stadium and giving hard earned bucks to the two groups who would just as soon crap on you if there was more money in it.

Here's the basic thing that I think everyone should remember. The owners are violating the Law. The lock-out was ruled illegal due to the fact that the owners were still running the business, but just not letting the players work. The players are sueing the owners for violations of the anti-trust laws. I repeat, the owners are being sued for violating the law. Until the union was decertified, the players had no standing to sue, now they do. Did the players walk away, yes, but I'm of the opinion that they probably had very little choice in the matter. So I don't really hold that against the players.

Big Matts Chief Chat!

Patrick / Big Matt Without a CBA all options are up for negotiation. Many of the owners fears were suggested in Goodell's last press release. I wonder what could be the worst fears for the players. I could guess no minimum salary, loss of health care etc... what am I missing? Their has to be more than material items and self interests? If you had the opportunity to mold the NFL into your dream football league what changes would you make? How would you provide for the players, owners and fans so all could be content?

Hey BM, it's me again. I have to give it to you, your rage is well represented in print. Well thought out and well written. You have valid points but I have to ask the question.. does it even matter who's at fault? You're trying to make this a black and white argument when in reality it's pretty grey. You have us picking sides with either the owners or the players being at fault and if you ask me they're both to blame for there being no football. I'm on the fan's side. My final complaint is that this horse is pretty much beaten back to life and then to death again and no one is going to change your mind this subject. OH.. and loved the pro weed piece last week. Your yin, TIDL

I don't understand the anger toward the owners for what they put in the TV contract. The biggest reason for union dues is so the union can support the members during a strike, correct? Unions also take their dues money and make loans with it. Are you telling me the revenue from the loans is not used to support the members during a strike. Looks like the owners found a way to level the playing field. I agree it was underhanded but why is outside revenue illegal for one party and not the other?

The owners were willing to show 5 years of year by year league wide operating profits which also included multiple clubs showing declines in profits over that 5 year period. They also agreed to give information to a 3rd party to review and verify the information they were giving the union was correct. If this is all in the name of separating truth from lie, that seems like plenty of information. The NFLPA declined this offer. By saying the only reason the NFLPA is requesting the information is to separate truth from lie, you are no longer willing to see all sides of the issue and seem to have your mind made up. Unless of course you believe that is the only way to do so (which I think is a little far-fetched). Originally the NFLPA wanted $151 mill in player costs and the NFL $131. The offer the NFL owners gave in mediation was $141, but met the NFLPA's request of $161 for the year 2014. These numbers were guaranteed even if the NFL didn't meet the projected numbers. The $141 in player costs would have actually been an increase from 2009 or 2010. DeMaurice Smith had done his fair share of spinning too. He said "If they win, the lockout continues. 1,900 players and their families will be out of work. Their health insurance has been cancelled." In fact, all players are eligible to continue their NFL insurance under COBRA. As of a month ago, 1200 players had already done so. The deadline to do so was May 10th. By all accounts, it seems the NFL caved and moved more toward what the NFLPA was requesting, yet the NFLPA hadn't budged.

I look at it as if the owners of each team form an owners union. They must stand as a united front or they will all loose. The lockout is how they have declared a strike. They cant form picket line outside every players house so they have locked them out of their facilities. Everyone has an image of the owners being full of wealth but take a look at the Dodgers. What would you think about building a new stadium for the Dodgers now that you know they are three hundred million in debt? Opening the books now could cost them stadium deals in the future. If, and it is a big if, the owners are telling the truth and are in financial trouble, Talk about breaking trust, The NFL gave them a limited look at their books and the first thing the NFLPA was go public with what they saw. That is business suicide for a privet company. You cant get any financial backing from anyone if you are not already doing well. The owners are in this for the long haul. Good or bad they have to remain a united front. Yes they have the opportunity to make a lot of money but that doesn't mean they cant all go broke.

Great Article Matt Seems like the other side has some ammo. If they shut the NFL down though and drag it out longer it would be cutting off thier nose to spite thier face. I dont know though maybe it would work too. The whole thing is over greed is what the pure product boils down to. I was over this stuff after the draft. I like the article but I wish we could be talking about the free agent pick up the Chiefs just snagged or something like that. The whole CBA thing has me tapping out of the NFL till something gets done, I dont even care anymore.

"If they shut the NFL down though and drag it out longer it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face." Couldn't that same thing be said about the NLFPA decertifying and taking the owners to court? Both are actions to gain leverage in a negotiation. Neither of which is moving the negotiation process forward. It is a boxing match where neither side has thrown a punch. Both boxers are still dancing around the ring trying to gain position.

I'd much rather be talking about free agents too Danny, believe me. Hopefully we will be before the summer ends. I've heard Mike Brown is considering a comeback.

Not only am I impressed by the quality of this post (nice job Big Matt) but the quality of the comments are great. It is nice to see so much effort being put in these posts by everyone. I do agree that if the owners shut down operations, that will be the final nail on the coffin, effectively burying them as far as support from John Q. Public goes. They can only alienate the fan base so much before even the extreme realize the BS that they are being fed and forced to digest. People are losing faith in football left and right, and unless that want to deal with the repercussions like what the MLB dealt with (how long did it take before baseball started regaining popularity? And they still haven't fully recovered...) they had better find a better way to handle the situation.

Exactly Right Lyle! Thank you for bring in this completely over looked piece of the puzzle. DSmith's EGO/political aspirations played a big role in the players walkout. Yes, The owners started it by opting out. The players walked out of negotiations. The scumbag owners had their TV war fund. The players decertified. The owners locked the players out. It ALL makes me sick! One thing I think you're over looking Big Matt is that the owners really are trying to plan for a long, healthy life of the teams and the NFL by investing their money in the future of the teams like new players/marketing/facilites vs. the players are looking for a short term payday as the average career length is only 3.5 years and then they are gone and so is their money. It is my understanding that under the old CBA the players were getting 60% (which again was walking away on average every 3.5 years) while the owners were getting 40% and had to pay all of the employees in coaching staff, marketing, administration, concessions, parking, security, communication, building/grounds, equipment staff, housekeeping, etc. I think both parties have equal guilt in this whole mess and in delaying the start to OTA's and rookie camp and they better not delay training camp or preseason. If they cause us to miss ONE regular season game may the Good LORD HELP and PROTECT them from ME!

Great write up Matt. I don't really disagree with anything that you wrote. That having been said, some of what Paddy and Blockeater wrote is also true. Here's my break down on things thus far: The owners opt out of the old CBA which they felt gave the players a little "too much of the pie". They have a TV contract war fund to live off of and think that with a lockout they can leverage the players into either giving some pie back and/or playing an 18 game season. The players who have hired DeMaurice Smith whose leagal expertice (and fame seaking) drive their approach. They strike a major blow to the owners in court by having their TV war fund taken away. This should have put the two sides on equal terms to negotiate a new CBA with no lock out. However, the NFLPA now sees weakness in the owners and decides that they don't want to meet in the middle. They think the law is on their side and can go for an all out "win" in the courts. It's my feeling the DeMaurice Smith wants this played out in his area of expertice (the courts) so he can score a major win and further his own political aspirations. With no TV money the owners lost their leverage in a prolonged lockout (both sides would suffer). Therefore they should have just kept negotiating. The owners caused this mess but now the NFLPA is prolonging it and (in my opinion) is coming off as just as guilty of choosing more money and leverage over a quick and fair deal for both sides. If this thing carries on into the regular season in the courtroom I will place equal blame on both sides at that point.

Wow. Awesome and very respectful debate on this topic. Well done everyone. Keep it going.

Matt, I want to start by affirming with you that this is not a personal thing between us fans who just want to see football happen. I do think it's important to try to understand both sides and to consider the repercussions, especially the long term repercussions, that one side or the other winning will have on football in toto. It seems to me that you think that the owners had nothing but evil malevolent intent in their actions. You really aren't considering their side in the argument, which I think blinds you to the potential damage a highly favorable outcome for the players would have. I want to address your some of your points. A) Yes the owners did opt out of the old CBA because they perceived that it was too highly favorable to the players. In business, a win-win scenario is what should be aimed for in employer employee relationships. The owners perceived that the long term effects of the current CBA would be harmful to the league as a whole. Now obviously you can just say they're a bunch of liars, but you'd need to show some evidence of that. B) Yes the owners did, because no CBA could be agreed upon and the owners have that prerogative. It's their business is it not? Why shouldn't they be allowed to shut it down? C) You're right, it would be nice for the owners to present some evidence that the CBA they opted out of would have been financially unsustainable. My though is that the owners have the long term to look at, while most of the players only have the short term. The owners have a vested interest in the long term survival and flourishing of the league. The players play for 5-10 years and go on their way. That's obviously not evidence for the conclusion that they're telling the truth, but it does perhaps clarify some motives. D) That case is still under review from what I understand. E) How can a judge tell a business who they can and can't let in their facilities? Does any other business have that problem? I think it's obvious on appeal the players will lose this. F) The players have partaken in propaganda as well. Public support is really irrelevant in this case. G) Your personal offense at the timing of remembering a tragedy is irrelevant in the case as well. Can you really say that you can read the man's heart and his motives? Even if he did do it to stop the boos, it doesn't change the legal implications of the CBA dispute. H) Whether you like the owners or not, their business savvy is the only reason the NFL exists. I) But the owners are the ones who manage the teams and pay big bucks to continue the business, as do other business owners. Why is it wrong for them to make money? J) Emotionalism doesn't determine what is right by the law.

Bossmanham (great name btw) With regards to F, G and J, you're right, none of those reasons are pertinent to the legality of this dispute, strictly speaking. What I was doing is listing the reasons I support the players. And they are all most defnitely valid in that regard, from my point of view. A) Do you really think the health of the league as a whole is what they were worried about? If by 'league as a whole" you mean "themselves" than I agree with you. But the league seemed to be doing pretty well under the old CBA, am I right? B) Yes, it is their business and they can shut it down, ending professional football, if they want. What I'm asking is, would you continue to support them if they do so? Follow-up question: seriously? E) The result of the appeal is far from obvious. One judge (Nelson) has already ruled in favor of the players on this issue. Of the 3 appeals judges, one is almost definitely siding with the players. The other two will likely side with the owners, but neither has made uo their mind yet, whereas the judge siding with the pplayers pretty much already has from what I've read. this is by no means a slam-dunk for the owners. H) Personal opinion, totally unquantifiable. And debatable, at best. The league was around before most of these guys were even owners. I) This is not specific to this dispute in any way, shape or form. Also, nobody has ever said its wrong for the owners to make money. Your response to C is an excellent point. The whole reply was great. You took the time to respond to each point (even if I don't agree with the responses) rather than just picking one thing and fastening on it because it seems the easiest to refute. Respect.

- Blockeater - need I say more? The owners are not the bad guys here, but neither are the players. This whole CBA argument is just destroying my love for the game. I have never seen the league, or the fans, so split like this before. It's quite sad that the players and owners are at all out war and that all of us fans can only watch both sides tear each other down. I just hope that this gets settled soon and people will quit trying to persuade each other to who is right. Go Chiefs! Go Football!

I go back and forth from the player’s side to the owners. I feel like the owners are taking most of the heat (more people are on the fans side) so I will do my best to make arguments as if I am completely on the owners side. In direct response to your points first: A) “The owners opted out” – In these agreements, the “opt out” is there in case the agreement gets lopsided over time. It got lopsided over time according to the owners and therefore they opted out. I don’t think they are wrong for choosing this option that was put in place for this very reason. I will go as far to say even the players knew it was lopsided in their favor as they seem willing to take a pay cut or so they say in the media (although they want to see the books). B) “The owners locked the players out” – I don’t know enough about this to really comments on why they did this or what it would mean if they didn’t. C) “The owners tried to claim they weren’t making enough money” – As I mentioned above, the players apparent willingness to take a pay cut leads me to believe the former CBA was in their favor more than it should have been. The owners did show the players some financial statements and according to them they proved it. The players requesting to see the books COMPLETELY seems a little far fetched and more of a negotiating tactic to say they tried and something they knew the owners wouldn’t agree to. Is there a way for the owners to “prove” this without completely opening their books? I have not heard either side discuss this. It seems this is an “all or nothing” for the players and the owners don’t seem like they will cave. For an agreement to get worked out there will have to be some “good faith” decisions made. There needs to be more trust. Everything won’t be on the table from either side and it appears the players are not moving forward until they see all. D) “The owners violated their agreement and locked the players out, thus breaking the law” – The TV negotiations were very shady. I don’t have a lot to say to really stick up for the owners on this. The players have been preparing for the lock-out for a couple years and the union has done things to prepare. The players appeared to prepare legally, and the owners tried to slip one by. They were caught. E) “The owners are attempting to engage…” - Let’s let the appeal process play out before you determine that this is done. The court system obviously does not think this is a dead issue since the players are still locked out. F) “The owners spin campaign…” – The players are spinning too. They claimed that they were willing to negotiate but were the ones that walked away from the negotiating table. They went to the courts because that was their best avenue. The courts aren’t going to decide on a CBA so the players are delaying the mediation process by going this route. To me, that doesn’t say they want to get an agreement in place ASAP like their spin tells us. It says more, “We want to get an agreement in place that is as good for the players as we can possibly negotiate.” That is all well and good, but that takes a lot more time that simply “we want football right now”. Both sides are delaying this while they are both saying, “we want to get this resolved ASAP”. The whole “opening of the books” was a great spin tactic that got a lot of fans on their side. I don’t think they think the books will prove them right, rather that they know the owners wouldn’t agree to it and they could use it as a PR ploy. G) “Roger Goodell using tragedy” – I was offended as well. I can’t say I have seen DeMaurice Smith put in the same position, but I will agree I haven’t seen him do this. H) “On a personal level” – Nobody can really argue about how you feel about a group of people. There are plenty of athletes that I am “familiar with” that I don’t care for. Putting people in a category and making judgments on the whole based on a few is a slippery slope. I know you weren’t doing that and only commenting on the ones you are familiar with, but it could easily go down that path. Since we do have to compare groups of people and we aren’t familiar with all of them, I don’t think this should be an argument for or against. I) “I pay my $ to watch the players...” – The owners are trying to assist you by paying players you want to watch. Living in a city that only has one pro sport, I can tell you having an owner that is willing to support a team and try to put a winning product on the field is a blessing. All the credit for the Chiefs staying in KC can’t be solely credited to Clark, but he does have a big part in it. A lot of teams have been rumored to relocate, and we are lucky that the Chiefs aren’t in that conversation. The Chiefs would go on without Clark Hunt, but there is no guarantee they’d go on in KC. There would have to be an owner willing to buy them and keep them there. Many teams have left cities or never come to cities because of this problem. J) “I don’t want to see…go through the same struggles…” - I am assuming by struggles you are referring to health concerns. Both sides say they are worried about players’ health, while both sides are doing this to help and hurt this. I heard this talk on the radio out here and apparently studies have been shown that the old “double helmet” that a few players have worn in the past greatly reduces the risk of concussions. Yet, nobody chooses to wear it. Players over time have been wearing less and less pads. What happened to the butt pads, thigh pads and knee pads? I don’t think the NFL is telling them not to wear them. The focus on hits to the head netted a lot of player fines this last year. Many players spoke out against it. The players’ safety is a big talking point for both sides, but neither seems to be completely concerned with it. Playing pro football is a choice. They don’t have to go through it. Sorry for the super long post that most people won’t read. I don’t see how anyone can be completely on one side of this debate unless you are an owner or part of the NFLPA. Both sides are using different negotiating tactics to get the best deal for them (De-certifying the Union vs lockout is just one example). If you can’t see both sides doing this, then you aren’t looking at it completely objectively. That is my .02.

I should pay more attention to the CBA fight. It has disgusted me so much, that I don't keep up with it and I'm prepared to find another hobby. Everything I hear is about the exchange of punches in the fight, but I don't hear about the issues they fighting about? Is it just money or other things like free agency? My bottom line is that a small market like KC has to have as much economic ability to field a competitive team as NY or Chicago. From just seeing the headlines of the Q&A with Clark Hunt, it sounds like that is also important to the owners. To that extent, I'm for the owners. Are the players wanting a less restrictive free agency system, eliminating the salary cap or revenue sharing?? Those are the things that keep football competitive and teams reasonably stable. If those things are tampered with, KC will not be competitive long term, and I'll take up duck hunting or something.

HAHA, you tried Patrick, but failed for two reasons. First, your heart and convictions are as you say, on the other side of the argument. But more importantly, there really are no compelling points. regardless of how the legal opinions come down, from a common sense and fairness perspective the pivotal points are simple. The owners had an agreed upon a CBA under which they both prospered and flourished. We all know a few things needed improving such as rookie draft salaries, but those that could easily have been solved. The basic problem is that the owners wanted to put the Genie back in the bottle and take away what they had given the players, out of greed. They claim they were suffering under the old CBA, but tellingly refuse to show any facts that demonstrate it's true. If the numbers supported their position, they would put them out there. In my view, the root problem is the owners see the NFL as theirs to do as they like, rather than a partnership with the players. Legally the owners are correct, they own the teams and are free to run it into the ground if they wish. But from a practical point of view, they need the players as partners to keep an amazingly profitable business going. Until the owners open the books to objectively show they need more of the pie to keep the league healthy, I'm with the players. In Jerry Jones I Trust? Urm, no, sorry.

Dang it. Well I tried.

I disagree. I think Paddy did a good job pointing out a couple of things, but not all of them. They did have a CBA but there is a reason they put the "opt out" clause in those. They do have a tendency to get lopsided overtime and it appears it has. If everything was fair as it was, why are the players so open to a pay cut when the league is "prospering and flourishing"? They didn't refuse to show ANY facts. They provided financial statements, but not for EVERY team. That is a tall request and one I am willing to be the players knew the owners would refuse. Is there a why for the owners to prove to the players without showing their COMPLETE books? The owners were trying to get this done through mediation (which both sides say that is the only way it will get done) and were negotiating the whole time. Paddy is right, the players walked away from the table. "Until the owners open the books to objectively show they need more of the pie to keep the league healthy" - This is the only way in your mind? I think the players spin of "show us your books" has set in with you. That is fine, but is that the only way to reach an agreement? This isn't about keeping the league healthy as much as it is about running the league in a way that is far to both the players and the owners. Both sides will admit as much. Again, I think it was obvious that the former CBA was too much in the players' favor.

The finalncial information they "showed" was the financial information for a team that doesn't have an owner. That was no accident. It was very, very telling. The offer the owners gave was one hour before the deadline. It was a PR move. They knew the players wouldn't accept, but set themselves up to say "hey, we made a really good offer." Which is, of course, exactly what they did say. "I think it was obvious that the former CBA was too much in the players’ favor." Can I ask why you think this? I've heard people who side with the owners say it, but what specifically are you referencing here?

They showed the Packers’ because it is released annually. That also happens to be a very profitable franchise so it's not like they were low-balling by giving them a struggling franchise. Other NFL financials are in the NFLPA's possession. The cap (players’ salaries) used to be based off of a % of NFL revenues for example. The players don't need to see the entirety of the NFL's books to get a good idea of where the NFL finances stand. The NFL has more to lose by opening the books than necessary to meet in the middle. This is players' spin to me, and I'm surprised you are reiterating it instead of questioning it. "We won't negotiate until the books are open". That doesn't sound like a side that is looking for negotiation but rather a side that views it as "my way or the highway". The players’ comments seem to be very open to taking a pay cut. I don't think players would be so open to that if they didn't think they were getting a better share.

But isn't the very fact that they're open to a pay cut the opposite of "my way or the highway"? You're right, the owners probably have more to lose by opening their books than is necessary to meet in the middle. You'll note, however, that the cries for them to open their books only started after they made their ridiculous claims of poverty. It's not like the players stormed into the league offices gestapo style and demanded to see the books without provocation. This is merely about separating truth from lie, which the owners are apparently unwilling to do. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. They released the financial info that already gets released. In other words, they released nothing.

We had a great deal,” Warner recently said, per Mike Sando of ESPN.com. “We had one of the best deals, in my opinion, of any of the pro sports when you talking about all of the things involved. Players knew that. We understood that. It afforded us lots of luxuries and making a lot of money. “But I think players are also realistic to understand, ‘OK, things have gotten out of control to some degree and so we’re willing to even the scales on those things.’ But there’s also things that we want, too. We want things that protect us long-term. We want the health-care issues. We want the issues of a 16-game season as opposed to putting us out there for a couple more games. This is just my opinion, I think players would take a little less money but they want the security of some of the other things that they’re asking for. I think that’s gonna be a big issue because they understand that players have a little more to lose than the owners. The owners will still be owners five years from now. Players, you miss a year and it costs you a lot when you’re talking about a short NFL career. So, players have a lot to lose. But I’m still very I’m optimistic that they’ll find a way to get this done and there will be football in 2011.” That is a quote from Kurt Warner about the CBA that the owners opted out of. I found it on Pro Football Talk, NBC sports, and ESPN.com. Kevin Mawae, the president of the union, has even been quoted as saying the players got a great deal. I may be wrong, I tried to look for it but couldn't find it, but I think Paddy even once wrote that the previous CBA favored the players. I find Kurt's quote interesting, because that last offer that the owners made prior to the players decertifying addressed everything he said. Kurt tried to spin it that it is not about money, the NFL met the players on every other issue and the players still said no, and wouldn't even make a counter offer... hmm...

Great piece Big Matt. I am going to give this a go because as everyone knows, I am right there with you in my support of the players. You and me have probably been the most vocal with our opinions. I have yet to hear a solid argument from anyone as to why my position is wring other than “the owners can do what they want it is their team/league.” Thus, rather than just listen, I am going to try my hand at defending the owners or at least demonizing the players. 1. The players were being unreasonable by asking the owners to fully open their books. While the owners should be able to open their books to the players without any fear of embarrassment or legal misdeeds, they shouldn’t be forced to. The players set a goal which they knew the owners would probably never give in to. It was a move that could be viewed as malicious. The players may have wanted to embarrass the owners more than they really wanted to see the financial information. This did nothing to help bridge the gap in the negotiations. 2. The players shouldn’t have walked away from the negotiations when they did. The NFL’s final offer wasn’t great but it was in some areas a vast improvement over what the players currently get, particularly in the area of retired players. After the players bailed, the NFL trumpeted only the good parts of the deal. While the players had some legitimate gripes, the deal still represented some budging on the part of the NFL. The entire point of collective bargaining is to move the sides closer together. As long as the NFL was still moving, the players should have kept negotiating. 3. The players foolishly put faith in the courts. No one should ever put their fiat hint he courts to settle a disagreement that can be settled by cool heads sitting at a table talking. The players thought they had an ace in the hole in the courts in Minnesota and they did. However, they obviously did not fully think about what the appeals process could mean. Decertifying was their only way to achieve some leverage but they didn’t have to decertify so early. After the NFL made it’s last offer, they should have offered to extend the deadline again. If the NFL had refused that extension then I would have no problem with the decertification. As such, the players thought they had a better chance in the courts so they bailed. Now, instead of a March and April of negotiations, we got a March and April of courtroom football and courtroom football sucks. Alright, those are three examples I feel go firmly against the players. Thoughts?

Your work continues to improve. Well written, to the point, and insightful ! The more you stay on point the more compelling and persuasive your position. For the 1st time ever I am in total agreement with you. Denny

Some dap from one of our regularest of regulars? Huzzah! Thanks amigo. Although come on, this couldn't have been the firsttime you were ever in total agreement. What about my "Paddy is a pervert" piece from a while back?

Really an excellent piece. I'm glad to see it, I've been mystified as why so many people have swallowed the owner's PR minion's nonsense and placed the players as the primary cause of the pitiful situation things are in at the moment. I think you hit on all the salient points, and hope people will give it some thought.

Much obliged. Owner spin always seems really blatant and obvious to me too, but it clearly works on some people. A lot of people, even.

I LOVE football - I am an addict and it makes me really angry to see the owners trying to make more money - they're millionaires. BUT - in no other privately owned company would anyone expect the owners to show their books to the employees!!

I got excited when I saw this post, Big Matt wanting to hear from the supporters of the owners. However, it baffles me that you can write that you don't see anything wrong in what the players have done. Even Paddy was able to put down a few... are you really that brainwashed by the player spin, and the their twittering and facebook campaigns that you could not see their wrongs? If the players never left the table we would have a deal by now... plain and simple, every negotiation like this has set backs, deadline extensions, but when both sides stay at the table it gets worked out. The players started this by walking away, they intesified it by decertifying and then they brought it to this insanity by sueing the NFL. Take out any of those steps and no matter what the owners may have done, we would have a deal by now. The NFLs next step is to shut down the league entirely until a deal is reached "As I said before, I’m willing to change my tune on the owners if they admit wrongdoing and change their ways. Are those of you who support them willing to be as flexible? Is there a line that, once crossed, would cause them to lose your support? I would imagine if they completely shut down the league that would probably do the trick, right?" REALLY? I am on the side of the owners despite the fact that if the season started tomorrow, their would be no football, you think the fact that they give their marketing department the summer off I am going to jump ship. That is a PR ploy by the players, and you are so blind to it. What does it matter, their are no players playing football right now, I couldn't give two shits weather or not the NFL main office has its lights on. Why is it a big deal? Cause the players want everyone to believe it is. And you fall for all their bullshit. Hell to be quite honest I havent cared about the lockout either. Off season football is not that exciting anyway, as long as we have free agency, training camp, and a full 16 game season I couldnt care less. This lockout has not hurt football at all yet, it is all perception. Everyone wants to flip out, if the players get the sand out of their vaginas and got back to the table, we could resolve this and have football tomorrow. Then what have we really lost? Who will stop watching? Why are we still argueing about this, if this lockout is still in place come July, then lets start bitching, until then lets enjoy the offseason.

Big Matt, you had me at "I believe them yo, I dont know why, but I do."

This should be required reading for every fan that loves to gobble up the slop the owners are serving.

Well done sir!

Good article, good comments. Don't agree with a single word. At the level of money involved, the tv interests, the fans "undieing love" for players (lip service for "the game"), it is truly sad what we have got to.

Then we have the issue of after the agreement. We will just be jumping for joy about running out to the stadium and giving hard earned bucks to the two groups who would just as soon crap on you if there was more money in it.

Here's the basic thing that I think everyone should remember. The owners are violating the Law. The lock-out was ruled illegal due to the fact that the owners were still running the business, but just not letting the players work. The players are sueing the owners for violations of the anti-trust laws.

I repeat, the owners are being sued for violating the law. Until the union was decertified, the players had no standing to sue, now they do. Did the players walk away, yes, but I'm of the opinion that they probably had very little choice in the matter. So I don't really hold that against the players.

Big Matts Chief Chat!

Patrick / Big Matt

Without a CBA all options are up for negotiation. Many of the owners fears were suggested in Goodell's last press release. I wonder what could be the worst fears for the players. I could guess no minimum salary, loss of health care etc... what am I missing? Their has to be more than material items and self interests?

If you had the opportunity to mold the NFL into your dream football league what changes would you make? How would you provide for the players, owners and fans so all could be content?

Hey BM, it's me again.
I have to give it to you, your rage is well represented in print. Well thought out and well written. You have valid points but I have to ask the question.. does it even matter who's at fault? You're trying to make this a black and white argument when in reality it's pretty grey. You have us picking sides with either the owners or the players being at fault and if you ask me they're both to blame for there being no football. I'm on the fan's side. My final complaint is that this horse is pretty much beaten back to life and then to death again and no one is going to change your mind this subject. OH.. and loved the pro weed piece last week.

Your yin,
TIDL

I don't understand the anger toward the owners for what they put in the TV contract. The biggest reason for union dues is so the union can support the members during a strike, correct? Unions also take their dues money and make loans with it. Are you telling me the revenue from the loans is not used to support the members during a strike. Looks like the owners found a way to level the playing field. I agree it was underhanded but why is outside revenue illegal for one party and not the other?

The owners were willing to show 5 years of year by year league wide operating profits which also included multiple clubs showing declines in profits over that 5 year period. They also agreed to give information to a 3rd party to review and verify the information they were giving the union was correct. If this is all in the name of separating truth from lie, that seems like plenty of information. The NFLPA declined this offer. By saying the only reason the NFLPA is requesting the information is to separate truth from lie, you are no longer willing to see all sides of the issue and seem to have your mind made up. Unless of course you believe that is the only way to do so (which I think is a little far-fetched).

Originally the NFLPA wanted $151 mill in player costs and the NFL $131. The offer the NFL owners gave in mediation was $141, but met the NFLPA's request of $161 for the year 2014. These numbers were guaranteed even if the NFL didn't meet the projected numbers. The $141 in player costs would have actually been an increase from 2009 or 2010.

DeMaurice Smith had done his fair share of spinning too. He said "If they win, the lockout continues. 1,900 players and their families will be out of work. Their health insurance has been cancelled." In fact, all players are eligible to continue their NFL insurance under COBRA. As of a month ago, 1200 players had already done so. The deadline to do so was May 10th.

By all accounts, it seems the NFL caved and moved more toward what the NFLPA was requesting, yet the NFLPA hadn't budged.

I look at it as if the owners of each team form an owners union. They must stand as a united front or they will all loose. The lockout is how they have declared a strike. They cant form picket line outside every players house so they have locked them out of their facilities.

Everyone has an image of the owners being full of wealth but take a look at the Dodgers. What would you think about building a new stadium for the Dodgers now that you know they are three hundred million in debt? Opening the books now could cost them stadium deals in the future.

If, and it is a big if, the owners are telling the truth and are in financial trouble, Talk about breaking trust, The NFL gave them a limited look at their books and the first thing the NFLPA was go public with what they saw. That is business suicide for a privet company. You cant get any financial backing from anyone if you are not already doing well.

The owners are in this for the long haul. Good or bad they have to remain a united front. Yes they have the opportunity to make a lot of money but that doesn't mean they cant all go broke.

Great Article Matt
Seems like the other side has some ammo. If they shut the NFL down though and drag it out longer it would be cutting off thier nose to spite thier face. I dont know though maybe it would work too. The whole thing is over greed is what the pure product boils down to. I was over this stuff after the draft. I like the article but I wish we could be talking about the free agent pick up the Chiefs just snagged or something like that. The whole CBA thing has me tapping out of the NFL till something gets done, I dont even care anymore.

"If they shut the NFL down though and drag it out longer it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face."

Couldn't that same thing be said about the NLFPA decertifying and taking the owners to court? Both are actions to gain leverage in a negotiation. Neither of which is moving the negotiation process forward.

It is a boxing match where neither side has thrown a punch. Both boxers are still dancing around the ring trying to gain position.

I'd much rather be talking about free agents too Danny, believe me. Hopefully we will be before the summer ends. I've heard Mike Brown is considering a comeback.

Not only am I impressed by the quality of this post (nice job Big Matt) but the quality of the comments are great. It is nice to see so much effort being put in these posts by everyone.

I do agree that if the owners shut down operations, that will be the final nail on the coffin, effectively burying them as far as support from John Q. Public goes. They can only alienate the fan base so much before even the extreme realize the BS that they are being fed and forced to digest. People are losing faith in football left and right, and unless that want to deal with the repercussions like what the MLB dealt with (how long did it take before baseball started regaining popularity? And they still haven't fully recovered...) they had better find a better way to handle the situation.