With NFL training camps opening, there’s a lot of talk about the Collective Bargaining Agreement and possibility of a lockout in 2011.  From what I’m hearing from the representatives of both the owners and players, there are five major sticking points in their negotiations. 

1.  Money – This is extremely complicated, so I’ll try to simplify it.  The NFL makes billions and billions and billions of dollars.  The owners take a certain amount for themselves off the top, and then the rest of the cash runs the league, pays the players, etc.  The owners want the players to submit to about an 18% rollback on the amount of money that goes into the player pool.  The players are not so ready to give back the money. 

On top of this, it seems as if the owners are using the total NFL revenue before anyone takes a cut to calculate this 18%, while the players are saying “Wait a minute, you already take your money off the top before we see any of it.  If this is going to happen at all, you have to calculate the percentage after the owners take their cut.” 

I don’t know if they’ll agree to the rollback or not, or what information is being shared between the two groups.  What I do know is that when we’re talking about a league that makes hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in revenue, the two sides should be able to reach an agreement in which both sides are paid very very very well.  I understand that both sides don’t want to set precedent, but if they can’t come to some sort of agreement on finances when we’re talking about this much money, then there’s something very very wrong.  They have to understand that stopping the season will kill that revenue and stunt the practically exponential growth that their league has seen.  Its just not worth it.

My take:  I’m with the players on this one.  I don’t see how you can justify an 18% rollback no matter which pool you take the funds from.  Players make a ton of money, but the owners make an ungodly sum.  Bad economy or not, these billionaire team owners aren’t hurting for cash, and they’re making their money on the back of the players who are mostly tossed aside by the time they’re 30. 

2.  HGH Testing - This one is fairly straightforward.  The owners want to be able to test the players for HGH.  The players are (mostly) ok with this, but they don’t think there is a reliable enough test.  They want to see the research that supports the owners’ claim that they can implement reliable, accurate HGH testing.  Additionally, the players do not want to submit to blood testing; they want to continue with urine-based testing only.

My take:  HGH testing is coming to the NFL.  It just is.  The last thing the NFL wants is a scandal that does to their sport what steroids did to baseball.  The owners want it out of the league for this reason.  And while some players may be against it because they are using, I think some are legitimately worried about unreliable tests giving someone a false positive.  Overall though, the players are going to give in because it just has to be done.  I’m with the owners here, and its going to be something the players have to give up.

3.  Rookie Wage Scale – Also fairly simple.  The owners want to implement a rookie wage scale because rookie salaries have become absolutely ridiculous.  Some of the players, especially veteran players, also want this.  So what’s the problem?  Well, the Player’s Union is against anything that would take money away from NFL players, even unproven rookies.  So they want concessions from the owners in order to implement it. 

One of the proposals was to take money from the rookie pool and put it toward veterans and retired players, but as a mea culpa, the union wanted rookies to become unrestricted free agents after just 3 years.  This was rejected by the league because they think letting rookies become UFAs after 3 years would undermine the spirit of team-building that the NFL hopes to promote. 

My take:  This is something else I’m with the owners on.  A rookie wage scale just needs to happen.  The fact that rookies are regularly among the highest paid players in the league is absurd.  I  understand the union sticking up for its rookies, but there’s not a person with a brain that looks at the current situation and doesn’t think its out of control. 

I don’t agree with the owners that making rookies free agents after 3 years is going to have a big effect.  Its only a one-year difference from the current 4 years they have to wait, but most rookies sign longer contracts anyway.  That said, I think the current UFA format is a good one, and don’t necessarily want to see it reduced.

In the end, even the veteran players want this to happen, so its going to ultimately end up being something that the union gives up to bargain for something else. 

4.  18 game season – This seems to be a major sticking point.  For the owners, it couldn’t be easier:  Drop two pre-season games that nobody wants anyway.  Take those two games, add them to the season, and viola!  You have two more games to sell tickets for, make concession money, add to the TV revenue, etc. 

The players flat-out don’t want to go to an 18-game season.  They’re worried about the grind.  And they’re worried about how much they’re going to get paid.  But mostly they seem to be worried about their health.  You’d basically be adding an entire season to an 8-year career.  That’s a lot.  Especially for linemen who tend to have health problems after their careers are over. 

The owners seem dead-set on this happening, but this is one thing that isn’t going to get passed without some major concessions.  First, the players want to be paid more, and they’re going to be.  You can’t add two games to a season and give the players the same amount of money.  Second, the players are really pushing for extended or lifetime healthcare for the NFL retirees.  Giving the players this future guaranteed healthcare could be something that makes them listen.

My take:  I’ll be honest, I love the 16-game season.  I think its the perfect length.  I understand the owners’ financial viewpoint.  More games=More money.  But I also understand the players’ viewpoint.  More games=More injuries+More wear and tear on their bodies.  Adding games in some cases could potentially shorten their careers. 

Listen, I’ll watch the NFL if its 14 games, 16 games, or 30 games.  If there’s football on, I’ll watch it.  And that’s what the owners know as well.  But overall, I think I’m with the players here.  Eventually the NFL is going to expand but I hope when it does, the players get a fair shake as far as money and, more importantly, healthcare.  Because while 2 games a season doesn’t sound like much, over the course of a career it adds up.

5. Personal Conduct – A lot has been made about Commissioner  and Grand Poobah of Discipline Roger Goodell and his “what I say goes” method of disciplining players.  While I applauded his stance on increased accountability early in his tenure, it seems as if the longer he’s been in charge, the more erratic his rulings have become.  Its as if he’s been taking tips from NHL Discipline Czar Colin Campbell,  and that is not a good thing.

Regarding negotiations between the owners and player, there seems to be an issue that has come up recently that really rankles the owners and the commish; so much so that they want to add it into the new CBA.  The owners want to be able to recoup large signing bonuses rewarded to players if those players violate the personal conduct policy. 

When players such as Mike Vick and Plexico Burress were forced to go to jail, the teams they played for tried to recoup the money they invested in those players.  Their view was that they gave this money to those players in good faith that they would be receiving the services of said player on the football field, and since the player put themselves in the position to be unable to fulfill their duties, the teams should be able to get that money back. 

The players, meanwhile, argued that signing bonuses are upfront monies collected by players and once they are paid, they teams have no right to ask for them back.  If the teams did not want to play the players that money up front, they could have constructed their contracts differently.

In practically every one of these cases, the arbitrator ruled for the players.

Now the NFL wants to rectify that by taking arbitrators and courts out of the equation by putting it in the new CBA.  They want to be able to recover any money paid to a player who is unable to fulfill their contract due to outside legal issues.  Obviously, the players union is against any action that involves giving back earned money. 

My take:  I can see both sides of this one, but if forced to pick a side…I have to say I’m with the owners.  If you’re a pro football player and you shoot yourself in the leg or you get caught participating in illicit illegal activities and are therefore unable to fulfill your contract, you should have to give back any bonus that was given to you with the expectation that you would be playing. 

Honestly, I think its just a question of what’s right and what’s wrong, and I think its wrong that a player can get 10 million dollars, commit a crime, and keep that money without playing a down.  I understand the legal problems of an employee having to give back paid money to an employer, but I still think its the right thing to do in this case. 

Final Thoughts

Overall, I know there is a lot of doom-and-gloom about the prospect of a lockout and the cessation of football in 2011.  I don’t buy it.  The league makes too much money and has too much name recognition to risk any of it in a work stoppage.  Maybe I’m a bit too optimistic, but I have to believe there has to be some way both sides will come to an beneficial agreement.  With this much at stake, any other result would simply not make sense.