NFL lockout strategy revealed
The NFL's lockout strategy
NFL lockout strategy revealed
Rich Hofmann, Daily News Sports Columnist
It isn't a big surprise that the NFL has been planning for a lockout for months and months. Everybody has reported on it. Most people expect it to happen, probably soon after the collective bargaining agreement expires at 11:59 pm on March 3.
Still, it really hits you when you see the strategy referred to in court documents. But it's all right there. The union is arguing before Federal judge David Doty in Minneapolis about whether or not the NFL should have been allowed to negotiate television contracts that require payment in 2011 even if there is a lockout. It is obvious what that kind of financial windfall would do for the owners, how it would insulate them from the pressure to pay the mortgage on stadiums and such as the players did without their salaries.
Doty -- who has overseen the NFL CBA since it was crafted two decades ago as a result of an antitrust lawsuit, and who is seen as biased in favor of the union by NFL owners -- put off a ruling on the issue on Thursday. (More on that below.) But he did order the unsealing of documents in the case, though they have been redacted (to remove a lot of financial information and such).
And those documents reveal what we knew all along: that the lockout has been strategized about at the highest levels of the league for months and years.
In its motion, the union quotes from NFL documents in a bunch of places where a lockout is discussed or suggested. Here are two instances:
In October 2008, they stated that "Key Considerations Related to NFL Labor Situation" included the "NFL's ability to use media revenues to fund work stoppage".
In February 2009, before a joint meeting of the league's labor, broadcast and finance committees, "The specific goals under consideration relating to the timing for key decisions include" - "Securing revenue streams that will provide the necessary financial flexibility to remain committed to the right long-term labor agreement."
It goes on and on from there. This lockout has been the NFL's fixation for years.
Now, I am not going to pretend to know what Doty is going to decide here. Some believe that he has thrown the NFL a bone by putting off his decision, the notion being that he wouldn't want to interfere with ongoing labor negotiations. But if the NFL traded 2011 revenue guarantees from its TV partners in exchange for lower right fees overall, that might be a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. If you violate the agreement as a labor strategy, how could the judge not step in?
Again, that's why he is the judge. But his short-term decision not to decide is not necessarily great news for the owners. If this TV money is a key part of the lockout strategy, and there is a chance it won't be there, how do you begin the lockout if you are the NFL? If Doty were to rule against the owners now, there are other strategies they might employ. But what if they were to begin a lockout and then have Doty decide against them in the middle of it? What do they do then? How do they pay their mortgages?
If you are interested in this stuff -- and most people aren't -- the peek into the inner workings of the NFL is revealing, and chilling. Compromise has not been at the forefront of their thinking, it seems. A lockout, the nuclear option, has been a key point of discussion forever.
Seems stupid that the networks could get suckered into paying billions and having no product to sell.— Onlineps2beast- rich - it's called a contingency plan. nowhere do i see this as their plan A. it's a plan B and as business owners, they MUST prepare for all options. Business 101. you're kind of creating a little extra drama here that just isn't there.— The Boston Strangler
- Disagree with the Boston Strangler, I think it's definitely intentional. As an observer, it's a pretty brilliant move (if the judge upholds it.) The owners want a lot back this time around so they need some kind of leverage. All I know is that no matter what happens, the fans get the shaft.— Vote for Dickie
- I disagree w/ The Boston Strangler as well. This doesn't appear to be contingency plan at all, but rather a foregone conclusion- "Securing revenue streams that will provide the necessary financial flexibility to remain committed to the RIGHT long-term labor agreement." Seems to me the owners are hell bent on getting what they want at all costs, while exhausting all options...
- There's just no doubt it's their intentional Plan A. It's been clear since 2006 when they signed the last one that first they would opt out then they would lock out.— thefadd
- This is a move by the owners to get rid of the current agreement and negotiate a new deal. The owners will take this thing to the wall and the players have very little leverage.— jss31
- Welcome to big business. The great part will be the media painting pictures of the poor owners and the even poorer players. Both sides will attack each other and WE the working people will decide on watching their game after it is all said and done. it will take years to fix the damage done to us, the fans.— SlinkTMP
- Squew them all. I don't care if they never settle. I used to be one of the fools that paid thru the nose for season tickets that included 2 crappy exhibition games forced on us by the NFL. I decided no mas, and gave up my tickets. I'm sticking with hockey now, Go Flyers.
- It's a damn shame to have such a good sport shut down because these jackaces can't negotiate in good faith. I love pro football but lets be honest about this, there are Fans out of work, losing their homes, their healthcare and concerned for the welfare of their families. The last thing these Fans want to hear is how bad the players have it financially and how the Owners need that extra Two Billion of revenue. Go ahead knuckleheads and lawyer scum, shut it down for the entire year, we'll still be here, maybe!— younged
- A lock out will be great for the Temple Owls. We still have college football to bet on and I bet they move a few games over to Sunday.— BentLogic
- The TV networks didn't have a choice to turn it down. If Fox told the NFL it wasn't willing to pay the 2011 revenue then they would have offered the contract to ABC. ABC could easily justify paying this ransom if it meant that they got to steal NFC Sunday so Fox, ESPN, etc had to pay. It is a little peak as to how much money the networks make off the NFL that they could afford to pay it.
The owners are correct that they have a bad deal right now. The percentage to the players is way too high. Yes, the local governments help them pay for the stadiums but the NFL actually chips in quite a bit of the money through a fund that the league keeps open for teams to borrow.
Solution: Owners get 17 game season and 2 more wild card teams in the playoffs(allowing all of the division winners a bye) players get expanded rosters(more payers being paid)
Owners get rookie wage scale. Players get to free agency earlier and the Franchise Tag can not be used in consecutive years on the same player. All player contracts are guaranteed for the current year.(i.e., once the first game of the 2011 season is played then all contracts are guaranteed for that year and so on year after year.)
Some of the biggest issues solved. Let me know others and I will mediate the whole dang thing.— UncleStosh - UncleStosh, under what information do you base your assumption that the percentage of the money pool that the players get is too high? I haven't seen any numbers substantiating this. Actually, I thought the owners are purposely not opening their books to the NFLPA. (w/ the exception of one team)
- I think its somewhere around 60% of the revenue sharing from tickets and other sources (TV/Radio/certain advertising) go to the players. However Uncle Stosh doesn't paint the whole picture. Luxury suite rental, PSLa and other income such as concessions and parking are not shared (amongst teams and players). That is a big chunk of revenue for teams like Washington, Dallas, Phila, NE and every other team with a new stadium that is loaded with Suites. — dankil13
- Thanks for those #'s, dankil13...So basically it comes down to the owner's 40% of revenue sharing from tickets plus all the other revenue generating sources, minus the operating costs...I'm just wondering where UncleStosh saw these #'s in saying the players are receiving to high of a percentage of the money pool. Again, from what I heard, the owners won't open up their books w/ the exception of the packers.
- Huh, didn't know employed billionaires were able to collect unemployment.
