Union wants to avoid uncapped year
Posted by Mike Florio on February 23, 2010 1:04 PM ET
My, how times have changed.

Four years ago, the threat of an uncapped year -- which was still a year into the future -- helped compel the NFL to agree to a labor deal that, little more than two years later, the owners wanted to scuttle. At the time, NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw vowed that, once the salary cap went away, it would never come back.

Today, with the first uncapped year since 1993 only 10 days away, the NFLPA wants to press pause for a full year. Executive Director De Smith discloses in a memo sent to all players and agents today that the unions most recent proposal to the NFL "contains an offer to continue the current capped system for an additional year which would allow the parties ample time to complete work on a long-term CBA."

It's a meaningless gesture. The league wants an uncapped year, in large part because the league knows the union doesn't. And if the players and agents place enough pressure on the union between now and March 5, there's a chance that the union will accept whatever the final offer is as of March 4.

"PFTalk" wrote:

In a memorandum to players and agents on Tuesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith expressed doubt about an agreement on a CBA extension being reached before the March 5 deadline. The memorandum, obtained by the Star-Telegram, also states that the NFLPA's latest offer included a proposal to continue the current cap system for another season to provide more time to reach a deal.

That last concession was out of a sensitivity to the scores of players like Cowboys receiver Miles Austin who will be restricted free agents instead of unrestricted agents and thus stand to lose millions of dollars since unrestricted free agency in an uncapped year increases from four to six accrued seasons.

Remember in a normal year, Austin could capitalize off his breakout season as an unrestricted free agent with a big money contract either from the Cowboys or a team on the open market. He could at least get a contract in the same ball park as fellow Cowboys receiver Roy Williams ($45 million over five years), who happens to be the No. 2 receiver behind Austin.

But as of now Austin will have to settle for the hightest restricted free agent tender of $3.1 million.

Here is the memo or shall I say take a cue from Jerry Maguire and say mission statement from Smith:



MEMORANDUM

To: NFL Players and Contract Advisors

From: DeMaurice Smith

Date: February 23, 2010

Subject: CBA Negotiations/Restricted Free Agency

As we quickly approach the beginning of the uncapped year, I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the NFLPAs efforts to reach agreement on an extension of the CBA before the beginning of the uncapped year on March 5, 2010. It is our view that obtaining an extension to the CBA prior to the uncapped year is in the best interest of both the players and the owners. However, the terms of any CBA extension must allow for players to get their fair share of NFL revenues while at the same time address the owners issues in such a way as to allow them to continue to grow the game of football. All of the NFLPAs proposals have been crafted with that in mind. The Player Representatives have also been advised of the NFLs request that players take a pay cut that would move players back to the 1980s in terms of their share of NFL revenues.

CBA Bargaining
There have been 12 general bargaining sessions with the NFL discussing issues relating to the proposed terms of a new CBA. Comprehensive written proposals and counter proposals have been presented to meaningfully address issues such as the overall player cost/free agency system, revenue sharing, rookie salaries, forfeiture clauses in player contracts, and off-season/pre-season work rules. In addition to NFLPA staff and outside counsel, NFLPA player leadership has been present at all of the sessions. Players attending at least one session include NFLPA President Kevin Mawae, Mark Bruener, Kevin Carter, Tony Richardson, Domonique Foxworth, Chester Pitts, Sean OHara, Jay Feely, Pete Kendall and Donovin Darius. These players have contributed valuable insight and perspective in support of NFLPA positions at the bargaining table.

On the NFL side, owner representatives in attendance have included John Mara (New York Giants), Mark Murphy (Green Bay Packers), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots), and Ozzie Newsome (Baltimore Ravens). The most recent session was held on February 6, 2010, just prior the Super Bowl, and was attended by the NFL Management Councils Executive Committee, which is comprised of 10 owners, and chaired by Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson.

In addition to the general bargaining sessions, six sub-committees were created to address very specific areas of the CBA. Those sub-committees are as follows: Benefits, Drug Policies, Grievance Procedures, Working Conditions, Injury Data and Licensing/Intellectual Property Rights. The NFLPA has prepared detailed written proposals for each of the areas addressed by these sub-committees and each committee has held no less than three meetings to discuss their respective proposals.

In total, we have held more than 30 overall bargaining sessions with the NFL in the past six months. And while we have made progress in some areas, we continue to have significant

disagreement with the NFL over their desire to have players take an 18% reduction in their share of revenues given the NFLs failure to provide meaningful financial data to support the assertion that their costs have increased significantly since the capped system was put into place in 1993. Their demand that the players take such an historic pay cut is even more disturbing given the NFLs continuing economic growth despite the worst recession in recent history.

The NFL has made it clear that the league and its clubs remain profitable. There has not been any statement, affirmative or suggested, by the NFL that any team is losing money. Moreover, the league has rejected any offer to discuss their profit margins, team profitability or any of their teams individual financial statements.

Players have always been willing to create incentives for NFL owners to develop new revenue streams for their clubs. The G-3 program contained in the existing CBA which provides salary cap credits for new stadiums provides a good example of our commitment to this philosophy. Our current proposal would allow NFL clubs to obtain substantially increased deductions for costs incurred to generate new revenue streams.

Another general bargaining session is scheduled for Thursday, February 25, 2010, at the NFL Combine in Indianapolis.

Uncapped Year
While we are doing all that we can to reach a fair agreement with the NFL before the start of the 2010 league year, it appears likely that no new CBA will be reached and the 2010 season will be uncapped. For some players this means that they will be Restricted Free Agents instead of Unrestricted Free Agents since unrestricted free agency in the uncapped year increases from four (4) to six (6) Accrued Seasons. We are sensitive to the impact that this change in the free agency rules will have on these players. Because of this, our most recent proposal to the NFL contains an offer to continue the current capped system for an additional year which would allow the parties ample time to complete work on a long-term CBA.

The NFLPA just recently won a Special Master decision against the NFL and its clubs which will force the high revenue clubs to share millions of additional dollars with the low revenue, small market clubs during the 2010 season. The decision to pursue this action was based upon our belief that we had to make more money available to sign players in the uncapped year.

Remember also that the uncapped year provides just that -- no cap or limit on the amount of money a club may spend on player salaries. The last time there was an uncapped season in the NFL was in 1993, and in that season clubs spent collectively over 70% of league revenue on player costs. While we cannot predict what will happen in 2010, we suspect that it will be dependent on the individual player and team. Given the projected increases in NFL revenues for 2010, more money should be available for player salaries than ever before. In addition, keep in mind that each NFL club will be saving approximately $10 million in benefit costs as a result of their not having to fund certain benefits in the uncapped year. That money can and should be used for player salaries.

For those players negotiating new contracts in 2010, please keep the NFLPA updated on the status of your negotiations as it will allow us to be informed of the trends in the market for player services. With that information, we can then help all players maximize their ability to get the best contracts possible. In the meantime, the NFLPA will continue its efforts to reach agreement with the league on a new CBA.

Union memo drops strong hint about looming collusion charge
Posted by Mike Florio on February 23, 2010 1:47 PM ET
Though the disclosure that the union asked the NFL to extend the current capped system for a year represents the portion of the memo from NFLPA Executive Director De Smith to all players agents that will generate the most attention, there's a more ominous message in the two paragraphs that follow the articulation of Smith's desire to freeze the current system in place.

Here's the full text of the two paragraphs in question:

"The NFLPA just recently won a Special Master decision against the NFL and its clubs which will force the high revenue clubs to share millions of additional dollars with the low revenue, small market clubs during the 2010 season. The decision to pursue this action was based upon our belief that we had to make more money available to sign players in the uncapped year.

"Remember also that the uncapped year provides just that -- no cap or limit on the amount of money a club may spend on player salaries. The last time there was an uncapped season in the NFL was in 1993, and in that season clubs spent collectively over 70% of league revenue on player costs. While we cannot predict what will happen in 2010, we suspect that it will be dependent on the individual player and team. Given the projected increases in NFL revenues for 2010, more money should be available for player salaries than ever before. In addition, keep in mind that each NFL club will be saving approximately $10 million in benefit costs as a result of their not having to fund certain benefits in the uncapped year. That money can and should be used for player salaries."

In other words, Smith is making it clear that, if teams don't spend significant money on the available free agents and/or players already under contract, the union will have something to say about the matter. Even if there's never enough hard evidence to prove collusion, there are other ways that the NFLPA can use a lack of spending on veteran players to instigate controversy.

For example, we believe there could be a rash of high-profile players speaking out about the failure of their respective teams to spend money in order to build competitive rosters. In this regard, keep a close eye on Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, a recent arrival to the union effort whose voice would carry plenty of weight in the ongoing effort by the NFLPA to paint the owners as the bad guys in this fight between billionaires and millionaires.

Then there's the offseason program. Apart from the reality that many of the restricted free agents who would have been unrestricted free agents will refrain from signing their tender offers and thus staying away from most offseason practices, the players already under contract have every right to boycott the offseason strength and conditioning program and all voluntary offseason practice sessions.

As one agent told Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal regarding restricted free agents, "If they want this fight, let's have it right now." That thinking applies to all other players, too.

So the players can strike without striking, and there's nothing the NFL can do about it.

Wait, there is. The NFL can roll up their sleeves and get a new deal done. A deal that's fair to everyone.

As we pointed out last week, if there's enough money to justify paying a former Commissioner $3.3 million more than three years after he retired, there's more than enough money for the players and owners to share.