Mike
03-14-2011, 10:23 PM
The way I have to come to understand the CBA Process is as follows:
1) The NFLPA is trying to de-certify themselves (break up the union) and sue on an anti-trust law basis for being locked out.
a) If De-Certification occurs and players sue on an anti-trust basis, Owners will be responsible for 3x the contended amount. That means that guys Brady/Payton, who would have made 31mil this year are now owed 93mil because of illegal lock out. This would give the players the upper-hand and they will most likely recreate the union and get a CBA to go their way while they have the Owners by the Balls!
2) Owners are trying to Prevent a De-certification of the NFLPA and Lock Players out.
a. Owners will argue that the De-certification of the Union is a ploy so they could have an anti-trust law suite and will argue that neither should be allowed. In 1987, this is precisely what the players did. While playing that year -after being allowed back- many players sued the NFL while still receiving a paycheck from the NFL. Owners will argue that the NFLPA is trying the same trick.
So far the Judge has leaned towards the players, so everything will come down to what direction he goes in. There is another notion out there that players do not need a union.
The idea of a union is that lower wage, lower ability, workers fight together via mutual representation. NFL players today are not low wage or low ability and do not need to be defended by a union.
Interestingly, if there were no union, then there would be no salary cap, no franchise or transition tags, maybe no draft, there would be very few rules of the current rules that could be enfourced as they would be considered illegal. As a result, players like Manning would get much richer contracts and teams like the Cowboys would always be great. For this reason, the NFL really needs to have an NFLPA, ironically, the Union has helped shape and create the NFL we see today.
1) The NFLPA is trying to de-certify themselves (break up the union) and sue on an anti-trust law basis for being locked out.
a) If De-Certification occurs and players sue on an anti-trust basis, Owners will be responsible for 3x the contended amount. That means that guys Brady/Payton, who would have made 31mil this year are now owed 93mil because of illegal lock out. This would give the players the upper-hand and they will most likely recreate the union and get a CBA to go their way while they have the Owners by the Balls!
2) Owners are trying to Prevent a De-certification of the NFLPA and Lock Players out.
a. Owners will argue that the De-certification of the Union is a ploy so they could have an anti-trust law suite and will argue that neither should be allowed. In 1987, this is precisely what the players did. While playing that year -after being allowed back- many players sued the NFL while still receiving a paycheck from the NFL. Owners will argue that the NFLPA is trying the same trick.
So far the Judge has leaned towards the players, so everything will come down to what direction he goes in. There is another notion out there that players do not need a union.
The idea of a union is that lower wage, lower ability, workers fight together via mutual representation. NFL players today are not low wage or low ability and do not need to be defended by a union.
Interestingly, if there were no union, then there would be no salary cap, no franchise or transition tags, maybe no draft, there would be very few rules of the current rules that could be enfourced as they would be considered illegal. As a result, players like Manning would get much richer contracts and teams like the Cowboys would always be great. For this reason, the NFL really needs to have an NFLPA, ironically, the Union has helped shape and create the NFL we see today.