Is it possible to have a 2011 season with no CBA?

[Forward_Lateral]

Can they have a season without a Collective Bargaining Agreement? I'm not asking if they would, I'm asking if, technically, it's possible.

[Luisito23]

Short answer...No.

[bflojohn]

Something tells me down deep inside that IF, and that's a HUGE IF, both sides agree to negotiate while the old CBA remains in effect during that cycle, that the league and players CAN resume play later this year, under the old accord! The chances however are as remote as tomorrow being the start of an instant, full blown ice age.

[DraftBoy]

I dont think so.

[Ickybaluky]

The league can declare an impasse and impose the last, best offer on the players. In that case, NFLPA could de-certify and sue, and it would go to the anti-trust courts.

That is basically what happened back in the early 90's, which is how the CBA originally came about. Gene Upshaw de-certified the union and went to the courts, and that forced the NFL to the table. They hammered out the current CBA.

The NFLPA likely does not want to de-certify. Unlike the last time, they have a lot more to lose. The situation is completely different than the early 1990's for the players.

Here is an article about it: LINK (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Decertification-part-of-a-plan.html)


In other words, in the event the NFLPA were to dispute restraints imposed by the NFL – free agency restrictions, the college draft, practice squads, salary caps, etc. – the league would prevail in these disputes based on the existence of a mutually-agreed-upon CBA. Taken to its logical conclusion, courts have ruled – the seminal case being Powell v. NFL in the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals -- that as long as the NFL players have a collective bargaining agent (union), they have no recourse in antitrust court to sue the NFL.

Faced with this dead end twenty years ago, the late Gene Upshaw chose a different path for the NFLPA. With the NFL allowed to impose its restraints through an impasse in bargaining and seemingly free to impose their system on the players as long as the players had a collective bargaining agent (union), Upshaw decided to have the players become antitrust litigants rather than union members. The union decertified, negating its existence as a collective bargaining agent, and allowing players to sue the NFL about the restraints in place.

I still think a deal gets worked out in the next 3 weeks. I realize there is a lot of negative press about how they can't agree on anything, but both sides have a lot of incentive to get a deal done. They both stand to lose a lot, and it makes more sense to come to an agreement. In the end, they will figure it out.

[DraftBoy]

I think the NFLPA decertifying is exactly what is going to happen. The TV deal ruling basically sealed that fate up.

Owners have no intention of getting a deal done right now. And they have no incentive to cave even an inch.

[Luisito23]

Owners have no intention of getting a deal done right now. And they have no incentive to cave even an inch.



Why would they really? They're all a bunch billionaires who know that the players are the ones who have the most to lose, and they also know that they'll eventually cave in...It's a game of poker right now, and they are the ones holding all the aces.

[Ebenezer]

I don't believe there can be a season because without a CBA there is no framework for player movement. Would UFAs return to their team, be unable to sign, etc. etc? There is no salary cap. What if UFAs move, get buckets of money and then the new CBA ushers in a Salary Cap that automatically puts those teams over? In my estimation, if there is no CBA (or an extension of the previous one) then there cannot be a season.

[ddaryl]

sure if both sides agree to it..

but why would the owners do that when they have a sweet heart TV deal that is going to pay them boatloads of TV money they don't have to share this season, nor do they have to pay much in overhead costs if the league is shutdown.

The owners set themselves up to make sure this season either destroys the players union or locks them out while they rake in monies.

[Ickybaluky]

sure if both sides agree to it..

but why would the owners do that when they have a sweet heart TV deal that is going to pay them boatloads of TV money they don't have to share this season, nor do they have to pay much in overhead costs if the league is shutdown.

The owners set themselves up to make sure this season either destroys the players union or locks them out while they rake in monies.

They aren't "going to pay them boatloads of TV money". It is a credit line from the TV networks. All the money will have to be paid back by the NFL. With interest. It does allow them some security, but it isn't free money.

The owners may have more leverage than the players right now (which is why the NFLPA is appealing the ruling and trying to drum up popular support for their position), but they stand to lose a lot if there is a lockout. It isn't something they want. Not only do they lose a lot of operating revenue in the form of marketing agreements that do not pay, but the popularity of the game could be hurt at least in the short term.

Yeah, the TV loans give them a way to keep paying their bills while they apply leverage and try to force a favorable deal, but there are risks with that and there will be revenue lost. There is still a lot of incentive for them to make a deal, especially if the players can hold out for a while and the loans start piling up for the owners.

There is a lot of uncertainty with a lockout or with de-certification. There will be legal challenges in the court and lost revenue. The only ones who will make on in that scenario are the lawyers.

[ddaryl]

They aren't "going to pay them boatloads of TV money". It is a credit line from the TV networks. All the money will have to be paid back by the NFL. With interest. It does allow them some security, but it isn't free money.

The owners may have more leverage than the players right now (which is why the NFLPA is appealing the ruling and trying to drum up popular support for their position), but they stand to lose a lot if there is a lockout. It isn't something they want. Not only do they lose a lot of operating revenue in the form of marketing agreements that do not pay, but the popularity of the game could be hurt at least in the short term.

Yeah, the TV loans give them a way to keep paying their bills while they apply leverage and try to force a favorable deal, but there are risks with that and there will be revenue lost. There is still a lot of incentive for them to make a deal, especially if the players can hold out for a while and the loans start piling up for the owners.

There is a lot of uncertainty with a lockout or with de-certification. There will be legal challenges in the court and lost revenue. The only ones who will make on in that scenario are the lawyers.

thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that they got the money clear and free..