Camping song, and some things to know about the NFL saga
Posted by UFreak in 
The primary reason the owners don’t want to open the books to the players is because they’d also be opening them to other owners, and the revenue streams aren’t exactly balanced team to team.
Most if not all owners can walk away from this and wait it out, most players can’t.
Now it’s not the most beneficial to the owners to wait it out, but they can. Whereas a lot of the players have the sort of lifestyle where they almost live paycheck to paycheck..
the NFL is 30 different private companies. When 30 private companies get together and agree upon a set of common policies, procedures, salary constraints, and decide not to compete for employees (via a draft) that would be considered a violation of antitrust law in any other realm. Its only not for sports leagues because there is an exception to antitrust law for collectively bargained agreements. If the owners unilaterally impose their own set of rules and the union decertifies, there is a very real risk that the entire NFL business model could be attacked in court (assuming the players have the desire and willingness to see that through).
The players will cave if this goes the distance. Book it with dollars to donuts. Owners will definitely survive, defer expenses, borrow from escrowed revs and god knows what other avenues these financial sophisticates can tap.
For those that aren’t aware, NFL offered to show aggregated profits and trends, including number of clubs that have had down years vs prior year (while salaries have risen). You can’t tell me the NFLPA needs to know which clubs. Their employer counterparty is not the NY Giants but the NFL.
I’m sorry but these players are gonna take it in the tail pipe, more likely than not. And, frankly, they deserve it as they don’t realize they are paid employees, and damn well paid ones at that.
The union has an obligation to bargain in good faith.
It would seem that a union initiative to decertify itself so it was not in a position to collectively bargain when it has a legal obligation to act in good faith is not without risk.
- the owners could file a complaint with the NLRB that the union is not bargaining in good faith
- decertification to avoid the obligation to bargain collectively would be a possible defense to the antitrust claim so long as the owners don’t do anything more than what any other employer would do in a similar labor circumstance
- not all collective action is per se illegal. Other than fixing the prices of labor or boycotting free agents, it is conceivable that many of the other collective activities of the league such as scheduling, playing rules and even the draft could pass muster under the rule of reason.
- even if there was liability, the players would need to establish damages. Remember the USFL won an antitrust case and was awarded $3. What are the damages when the union is decertified at the behest of the union?
- the owners may decide to say screw it and let the players have their free agency. After all, baseball survived. The league will divide into the have’s and have not’s, a few players, mostly qb’s, will make the big bucks and a lot of guys will make little money. “Here’s your check Peyton, sorry there’s no money for pass blockers or receivers.”
- another union may step in. There’s going to be guys who aren’t happy about missing paychecks while waiting for the court to grind on. Those guys may decide that they would be better off with another union. Or, you might get the qb union, the rb union, the defensive players union.
Guessing that the owners don’t want to provide 10 years of audited financial statements because these teams are organized as LLC’s, LLP’s, and other tax planning vehicles and that it isn’t easy to decipher what they are making and what they aren’t.