Snookered or not, players staring at fair deal

Upon further review . . .

On Thursday evening, the NFL owners made a dramatic announcement in Atlanta. They had voted 31-0 to approve a 10-year deal that would end the four-month-old lockout of their 1,900-plus players. The season was saved. Training camps would open next week and order would be restored to the universe.

"Our fans won't have to hear about labor relations for the next 10 years," New York Giants owner John Mara said. "That's a relief for me, too."

It turned out to be more like 10 minutes. The NFL Players Association, the once and future union, began putting out word that it had not agreed to the deal at all. The players declined to vote on the announced agreement in a conference call among (non-)union representatives. Afterward, the NFLPA rattled its sword, suggesting the NFL announcement violated labor law by pressuring the players to recertify their union.

The lockout is dead! Long live the lockout!

The stunning turn of events left the situation murkier than ever. Either NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and several well-respected owners had lied, bluffing that the players would feel pressured to confirm a bogus deal, or the NFLPA was engaging in one last bit of gamesmanship before signing off on the agreement.

Either the lockout was over, with players free to report to training facilities as soon as Saturday, or this was a major setback that could lead to the loss of preseason and even regular-season games.

Regular readers of this column have found little sympathy for the owners here. They opted out of their previous agreement with the NFLPA. They started this labor war by locking out the players. They did those things even though the league was making enormous amounts of money and seemed poised for another explosion of revenue growth.

But it strained credulity that commissioner Roger Goodell and 31 owners would announce approval of a deal the players hadn't agreed to - not because of their inherent deceny, but because it would be all too easy to prove they were lying. The deal in question had, after all, been negotiated under the auspices of federal judge Arthur Broylan.

It would take even more gall and arrogance to pull a stunt like that than the owners have previously exhibited, and they've exhibited plenty. It would also take remarkable stupidity, since such a ploy would surely be exposed and would look terrible in the court of public opinion.

Meanwhile, the NFLPA knew full well the owners were meeting in Atlanta to review and vote on a tentative agreement. If there was no agreement, it would have been handy (and a credibility boost) if the NFLPA had said so before the owners' vote. Instead, NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith addressed the media late in the afternoon to say only that recertification of the union was a serious issue.

Best guess: The players will vote to approve this rough deal within a day or two. There is too much money at stake to let this drag on into the season.

As for the deal as explained by the NFL, it seems like an eminently reasonable set of compromises.

The owners shaved a couple of percentage points from the players' previous share - no small thing when you consider the league expects revenues to double during the life of this new agreement: 2 percent of $20 billion is, according to rough calculations, real money.

That was the main point, recalibrating the way the revenue would be divided as it grew. The owners succeeded in getting a more favorable revenue split, but didn't completely crush the players. Both sides made gains.

One example: The new (apparent) deal limits bonuses and salaries for incoming rookies. That will represent real savings to the owners without cutting further into the pool of money that goes to proven veteran players.

And teams would be required to spend 99 percent of the annual salary cap in the first two seasons of the deal, then 95 percent of the cap after that. Those numbers represent a win for the players. To make that work, the owners also agreed to revenue- sharing policies that will shift money from wealthier franchises to small-market teams.

The deal (as announced) would sharply reduce the amount of offseason activity and the physical intensity of training camp and in-season practices. Those health and safety issues were important to players. They could also help create a more favorable atmosphere to reintroduce the idea of the 18-game season in a couple of years.

The (apparent) deal gives players the right to stay in the NFL's medical insurance plan for life, and would pump nearly a billion dollars into funds for retired players.

Those are admirable changes that represent a more enlightened approach at a time when player safety and long-term health effects have been hot-button issues.

It seems like a pretty fair deal. That is, if it is a deal at all.