Talks fail, players taking NFL to court

WASHINGTON - If the NFL ever was close to a negotiated settlement in its collective-bargaining war, it sure isn't this morning. The gap now stretches 1,200 miles, from the District of Columbia to Minneapolis. That's the home of the U.S. District Court that will rule on the NFL Players Association's request for an injunction to stop this morning's lockout, and on the 52-page antitrust action filed by 10 players last evening.

The suit, which carries the names of the game's top three quarterbacks, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, alleges that the league's salary cap, franchise tag, and other restrictions to player movement, such as the entry draft, violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The NFL locked out its players at midnight, which surprised no one, at the end of a frazzled, contentious day that included the union decertifying. Earlier in the evening, union outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler told reporters at NFLPA headquarters that the league had to either impose new rules by midnight or lock the players out. "We assume that there's going to be a lockout," Kessler said. Just before that, NFL counsel Jeff Pash said the matter wasn't decided, but several hours later, it obviously was.

The Minnesota court is expected to grant the injunction request, within a matter of weeks, since the union has decertified. (Technically, the union said it renounced its status as a collective-bargaining agent and became a "professional association.") The NFL would then appeal that injunction to a three-judge panel chosen from the 11 judges in that same district court, a process that could stretch over weeks and months. In the meantime, the NFL has a complaint pending with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that the renunciation/decertification is a sham, a bargaining ploy that should not stand. (Kessler's rebuttal there is that the NLRB has no oversight, since the NFLPA is no longer a union.)

In an effort toward swaying public opinion, likely to be unsympathetic to either side, both sides vented for the cameras after the talks broke down, each feigning amazement that the other group found its proposals less than acceptable. It's impossible to detail here all the numbers and concepts thrown around in media sessions with various figures on both sides. But the sides agreed that they were about $650 million apart on the key issue, that extra billion dollars off the top the owners say they need in a new deal, when the league offered, around lunchtime yesterday, to split the difference.

According to the NFLPA, it had offered savings that amounted to $550 million over 4 years, or $137.5 million a year. If you figure the league ended the day seeking $325 million, the final difference there would be about $187.5 million per year, which in a league that grossed $9.3 billion last year, wouldn't seem all that catastrophic, but apparently was.

The league's favorite talking point is that the players are choosing litigation over negotiation; it accuses them of pursuing that strategy from the start. The union counters that it was the owners who reopened the 2006 CBA, and who are seeking concessions, without providing full financial information to justify asking the players to give back money.

The players must be very confident of their legal position, because it was clear in the waning hours of the talks that the owners were moving, and details of the NFL proposal released last night included some seemingly attractive concessions, such as a pledge not to institute an 18-game season over the next two seasons, and not to institute it after that without the players' approval. But the players declared, just before 5 p.m., that they would only extend the talks if they were promised audited financials from every franchise for the past 10 years - a proposal the league would never accept.

Federal mediator George H. Cohen concluded that "no useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time," and that the league and the union have not "been able to resolve the strongly held, competing positions that separated them on core issues."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said: "As you know, the union walked away from the mediation process today to decertify. We do believe that mediation is the fairest and fastest way to reach an agreement that works for the players and for the clubs. And we believe that ultimately this is going to be negotiated at the negotiating table."

NFLPA outside counsel Jim Quinn, responding to Pash's comments, in which Pash said the union wasn't serious about the talks, said: "I was just watching a news conference that Mr. Pash was giving. And I hate to say this, but he has not told the truth to our players or our fans. He has, in a word, lied to them about what happened today, and what's happened over the last 2 weeks and the last 2 years."

Union chief DeMaurice Smith recalled a May 2009 letter he sent Goodell, as talks were starting, telling Goodell that the financial information the union was seeking would be critical to justifying concessions. Smith said the union offered "$550 million of investment revenue" without the financial justification.

"We did so at a time when we know that the economics of football are not only good, they're outstanding," Smith said. "[This was done] without a shred of financial information. So for them to say that our path was always decertification, and that we did not engage in good-faith negotiation, and that we did not budge, flies in the face of reason, flies in the face of facts, and is simply untrue."

That was not the view of Giants co-owner John Mara, who spoke after Goodell and Carolina owner Jerry Richardson, on the sidewalk outside the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service at 21st and K streets, with reporters straining to hear over the sounds of rush hour.

"This obviously is a very disappointing day for all of us," Mara said as the NFL seemed poised for its first labor stoppage since 1987. "I've been here for the better part of 2 weeks now, and essentially, during that 2-week period, the union's position on the core economic issues has not changed one iota. Their position has basically been take it or leave it, and in effect, they've been at the same position since last September . . . I think that they believe [litigation] gives them the best leverage. I never really got the feeling during the past 2 weeks that they were serious about negotiating. It's unfortunate, because that's not what collective bargaining's about."

No Eagles players were among the throng of two dozen or so people who made up the union contingent at the talks. Player rep Winston Justice said last night he was fielding calls from teammates wondering what comes next. "It's out of our hands right now," Justice said. He added that the Eagles reaffirmed their OK of decertification just after the season ended. "Everyone's on the same page," he said.

Justice said he was surprised the talks failed. "I think they're not treating us like people, they're treating us like products," he said.

Eagles president Joe Banner was in Washington all week with the management negotiators, working on a rookie-pay-scale system that at one point was said to be close to being agreed upon. In the end, that glimmer of hope blew away along with everything else discussed in 16 days of mediated talks.

"It was one of the most fascinating, challenging and frustrating weeks in my career," Banner said by e-mail last night.

He was asked if he thought he'd wasted his time.

"Not wasted," Banner said.

For more Eagles coverage and opinion, read the Daily News' Eagles blog, Eagletarian, at www.eagletarian.com.

Follow him on Twitter at

http://twitter.com/LesBowen.