why in the blue hell is the nfl pa attacking the draft??

[NOT THE DUDE...]

seriously this will kill teams that are not good... has this ever happened in other sports?

[ddaryl]

out of thin air or do you have some link to some info we should be reading 1st

[CleveSteve]

Part of the NFLPA's assertions is that the draft prevents the players from free market access to shop their abilities. It's part of the whole "Is the NFL a single entity or collection of competing companies" question.

[ddaryl]

I haven't heard a peep out of the news in regards to the NFLPA asserting any such thing...

not that I've hung on every piece of news coming out of the situation

[trapezeus]

i haven't heard much of the PA being against the draft, but if that's what they are harping on, it's mroe for posturing to get other things.

there is a 1% chance of the NFL moving forward without a draft. if they do, they might as well close down 20+ teams and just make it dallas, new england, dc, NY, NY, and Miami. None of the other teams will be able to compete on a non revenue share of box money basis.

[Novacane]

I haven't heard a peep out of the news in regards to the NFLPA asserting any such thing...

not that I've hung on every piece of news coming out of the situation



I'm not going to look for a link but in a statement Goodell made last week he said the draft is one thing the players are going after.

[Ickybaluky]

Part of the court case the players have filed is that the draft, franchise tags, restricted tags, etc. are all unfair practices. If the case follows through to fruition in the courts, all those would go away. They are, in a free market with no CBA, illegal practices because they restrict trade and are collusive.

It also means there would be no cap, no minimum or maximum salaries, etc. Teams would compete to sign players without restriction. If a team wanted to sign high school kids, they could. If they wanted they could sign a guy for minimum wage to snap for FG, so it would hurt players who are easier to replace. A player would either have a contract or not, there would be no restrictions otherwise.

Of course, the more likely scenario is a new CBA is negotiated as part of a settlement of the court case, allowing for the draft and other rules that would otherwise be illegal.

But yes, it is possible that what would come out of this is a new system without a draft or other restrictive practices. That is being pushed hardest by Jeffrey Kessler, the NFLPA lead counsel.

[Saratoga Slim]

i haven't heard much of the PA being against the draft, but if that's what they are harping on, it's mroe for posturing to get other things.

there is a 1% chance of the NFL moving forward without a draft. if they do, they might as well close down 20+ teams and just make it dallas, new england, dc, NY, NY, and Miami. None of the other teams will be able to compete on a non revenue share of box money basis.

Exactly. It's positioning. The owners got a lot of good press with their post-mediation release about all the concessions they made to the players. The players are trying to make the point that they are also giving a lot of concessions as well that might not appear as concessions. Thus, they put things like the draft and free agency back on the table as talking points, i.e. things that they will "agree" to give up as part of the next deal, even though they've previously agreed to them before.

It's a simple negotiation tactic. Instead of only playing the hand you've been dealt, try to use the cards from your last hand too.

[Michael82]

It's yet another reason why I blame the players and am on the owner's side. If Kessler gets his way, he would win his court case against the NFL and the league would lose a salary cap, free agency, and even the NFL Draft. There would literally be no rules because it would be 32 separate businesses instead of 1 big business and would kill small market teams like Buffalo.

[THE END OF ALL DAYS]

take away the draft and you will ruin the sport. there would only be 3-4 teams that EVER have a shot at a SB.
it would just be the end of NFL period

[Ickybaluky]

It's a simple negotiation tactic. Instead of only playing the hand you've been dealt, try to use the cards from your last hand too.

No doubt it is a negotiating tactic, but the case is very specific about what they are asking the judge to do.

They are asking for the following:

1) An injunction to stop the NFL lockout, open facilities and start league business

2) Restraints on their earning ability (lockout, draft, salary cap, franchise/transition tag) declared illegal

3) Players currently under contract to be paid (triple damages + attorney fees)

4) Delcare the "sham" defense of NFL to be not valid, based on language in the last CBA.

Now, the NFLPA is thinking they have a strong case, so if they win an early injunction the NFL will agree to a CBA on terms more favorable to them to avoid all this coming to fruition.

However, if they can't agree on a new CBA and a decision is made (and held up on appeal) in favor of the players, then these items all become what happens. The league will open up for business with no CBA, no cap, no restrictions like tags or a draft. That is a possible outcome. Nobody knows if that will happen and it probably isn't the most likely outcome, but it is out there.

By de-certifying and going with this litigation strategy, the NFLPA introduced what is the nuclear option. That isn't the outcome they want, but it is the road they have gone down. The courts control the outcome. There are risks on both sides.

[Buddo]

The thing about all the 'free market' stuff I find amusing, is that it doesn't help the majority of the players.
As to the draft, well, I'd be highly surprised if the next 'franchise' type QB to finish school, gets anything like what Bradford got. Teams just won't pay that sort of money, and they cannot be made to. It's a simple defense - what have you done in the NFL to prove you deserve that sort of cash?
There will also be a lot less players signed, imho. Teams will look long and hard at their rosters, and say that they have guys already under contract, and we don't need to take chances on kids from college.
The truly 'elite' players will get paid well, but after that, all bets are off.
I really question the mentality of the players in actually pointing this particular stick at the owners. If they get all the rulings in their favour, all that will ultimately happen, is that they will find themselves working under far more onerous terms than they currently do.
Give it a couple of years, and players will suddenly find there are no such things as OTAs that can be missed - they will be turning up daily to the facilities.
They will also find that they can't just throw their toys out of the pram, the minute something happens they don't like, either.
'Breach of Contract' will become a term they will get to be highly familiar with.
Signed a deal for 5 years? You will be playing at the same deal for 5 years, although if you do well, then an extension or new deal might be forthcoming after 4.
And this is all before any damage done to the limited parity the NFL tries to maintain atm.
I'm really not sure how the players cannot see that this action (lawsuit), has a great deal of potential, to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[ddaryl]

It's yet another reason why I blame the players and am on the owner's side. If Kessler gets his way, he would win his court case against the NFL and the league would lose a salary cap, free agency, and even the NFL Draft. There would literally be no rules because it would be 32 separate businesses instead of 1 big business and would kill small market teams like Buffalo.

I think you're just reading to much into crap. and they wouldn't lose free agency in your scenario, the whole league would be free agency based....

[YardRat]

The players have always attacked the draft...in all sports. That's how the NFL draft got down to 7 rounds, and the NBA only two.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

whats ironic is that if there is no draft and no cap restrictions and no revenue sharing only good big market teams will get all the good players making teams like buffalo miami denver seattle baltimore all suck and eventually lose their markets all together making the nfl have about 10 teams which in turn would limit the amount of nfl players, this would put nfl players out of a job.

the nfl would shrink. players would then get paid less, even the good ones. wtf are they thinking...

its the exact reason nobody goes to see the blue jays play or the pirates... the fans know they have no chance...

[Michael82]

I think you're just reading to much into crap. and they wouldn't lose free agency in your scenario, the whole league would be free agency based....
You could possibly lose restricted free agency and all tags.

[Ingtar33]

this is part of the decertification of the union.

The issue is anti-trust. The NFL, unlike MLB, doesn't have an anti-trust exemption. By decertifying their union they can make a claim that the Owners are engaging in "price fixing" and that the NFL is just a giant monopoly.

It's a clever legal strategy with one flaw. The NFL is pointing out that if the NFLPA doesn't exist, then they can't negotiate, and they they're still acting like a de facto union. The NFL's argument will probably win the day in the end. Claiming you're not something, then acting like you are, is rarely accepted by the courts.

So while the player's union's strategy might work in the short term, eventually it's going to get undone when the NFL win's it's own cases...

[Saratoga Slim]

No doubt it is a negotiating tactic, but the case is very specific about what they are asking the judge to do.

They are asking for the following:

1) An injunction to stop the NFL lockout, open facilities and start league business

2) Restraints on their earning ability (lockout, draft, salary cap, franchise/transition tag) declared illegal

3) Players currently under contract to be paid (triple damages + attorney fees)

4) Delcare the "sham" defense of NFL to be not valid, based on language in the last CBA.

Now, the NFLPA is thinking they have a strong case, so if they win an early injunction the NFL will agree to a CBA on terms more favorable to them to avoid all this coming to fruition.

However, if they can't agree on a new CBA and a decision is made (and held up on appeal) in favor of the players, then these items all become what happens. The league will open up for business with no CBA, no cap, no restrictions like tags or a draft. That is a possible outcome. Nobody knows if that will happen and it probably isn't the most likely outcome, but it is out there.

By de-certifying and going with this litigation strategy, the NFLPA introduced what is the nuclear option. That isn't the outcome they want, but it is the road they have gone down. The courts control the outcome. There are risks on both sides.

The four items you mention above are part of the players' demands for relief as set forth in their Complaint, but the reason they are included in the Complaint is for negotiating leverage. The players don't really want to eliminate the draft, they want a new CBA with ostensibly the same terms as the old one. The players had no real problem with the old CBA, it was the owners who exercised their cancellation clause. The players were pissed that the owners opted out.

In drafting a Complaint (the document that commences the litigation), you include the whole kitchen store. You're trying to scare the defendent by showing them what they might lose if the Court considers your claim and rules in your favor. the goal is to persuade them to take it out of the Court's hands and avoid the worst case scenario by entering into a settlement negotiation that they have some control over.

That's exactly what's happening here, though to date the league has not been cowed into entering settlement negotiations - they have been treating the suit as a distraction from the real issue of importance: collective bargaining.

[Saratoga Slim]

this is part of the decertification of the union.

The issue is anti-trust. The NFL, unlike MLB, doesn't have an anti-trust exemption. By decertifying their union they can make a claim that the Owners are engaging in "price fixing" and that the NFL is just a giant monopoly.

It's a clever legal strategy with one flaw. The NFL is pointing out that if the NFLPA doesn't exist, then they can't negotiate, and they they're still acting like a de facto union. The NFL's argument will probably win the day in the end. Claiming you're not something, then acting like you are, is rarely accepted by the courts.

So while the player's union's strategy might work in the short term, eventually it's going to get undone when the NFL win's it's own cases...

I think you have most of the above right except for the conclusion.

The law is against the NFL on this. They're likely to lose the Brady case if it goes to trial. However, even if the case was decided by the judge prior to trial by virtue of what's called 'summary judgment' (the judge reviews the evidence and rules that there is no issue of fact that would allow a jury to find for one or the other of the parties), a resolution of the case by the Court would likely take a year - and the league could drag it out longer.

I believe that the league's strategy relied on the lockout remaining in place. With the lockout in place, they assumed that the players would not be able to wait long enough for the litigation to take its course, and they'd cave and be back at the table hammering out a deal acceptable to the league.

There was no good reason to expect that this injunction would be granted. An injunction is a rare beast. It's only granted under extreme circumstances. The example I usually use is a case where a plaintiff is objecting to the construction of a building on wetlands. If the construction is allowed to continue while the case is proceeding, the wetlands will be destroyed by the time a decision is reached, and the issue will be moot. Thus, the judge will grant an injunction to put the brakes on until the court can decide whether the buidling is lawful or not.

But that's a rare set of facts. Usually, the Court denies injunctive relief and just lets things proceed on the assumption that the plaintiff can eventually be compensated by money. Here, the judge ruled that it would be almost impossible to compensate the players with money, because of the nature of the sport. She wrote about things like lost practice time leading to diminished skills..leading to losing roster spots etc. In essence, she is saying that if you stop the sport, the players that are currently playing it may lose their competitive advantages in very subtle ways that can't be ascertained or evaluated from a monetary perspective.

I don't buy it. And the 8th Circuit may not either - the league has already filed its appeal. No way of knowing for sure, but in any event, the league's strategy is in serious danger. You can bet that there are some VERY angry owners right now, and some lawyers that may be soon looking for work.

By the way, I have a copy of the Judge's Decision on the injunction. It's a good education on the legal background here - she did a nice job of explaining the litigation history over the past 30 years. If anyone wants a copy, send me a PM and I'll email it to you.

[Ickybaluky]

The four items you mention above are part of the players' demands for relief as set forth in their Complaint, but the reason they are included in the Complaint is for negotiating leverage. The players don't really want to eliminate the draft, they want a new CBA with ostensibly the same terms as the old one. The players had no real problem with the old CBA, it was the owners who exercised their cancellation clause. The players were pissed that the owners opted out.

In drafting a Complaint (the document that commences the litigation), you include the whole kitchen store. You're trying to scare the defendent by showing them what they might lose if the Court considers your claim and rules in your favor. the goal is to persuade them to take it out of the Court's hands and avoid the worst case scenario by entering into a settlement negotiation that they have some control over.

That's exactly what's happening here, though to date the league has not been cowed into entering settlement negotiations - they have been treating the suit as a distraction from the real issue of importance: collective bargaining.

First of all, I am not taking a side in this. I don't really care what happens as long as they start playing again. I don't blame the players for doing what they are doing, they are just trying to get the best deal for themselves. More power to them.

However, no longer having a draft is a real option, especially after yesterday's ruling. With yesterday's ruling coming down very much on the side of the players they have gained a lot of leverage. The NFL will appeal, and the lockout will be lifted either right away or in the future. Legally, the courts have stated the league has no right to lock out the players because they are colluding. It is illegal.

So the question becomes, what are the rules? The NFL will probably put some rules in place, but the players will challenge any they don't like as unfair practices. They will go back to the court to get tagged players free and the draft gone, because that offers them the greatest leverage. That is the road they are going down.

Now, their real strategy is to get the NFL to agree to a new CBA at terms they find acceptable. They think the NFL will give concessions to avoid losing the draft, FA and all the rules of the CBA. If the NFL digs in and they dont' agree, then they will continue down the road and head to an open market, because that is what is legal without any CBA or anti-trust exemption.

I don't think that is good for either side. The owners would have no certainty in for planning, and it would lead to inequity between teams. The players would find out that while the open market means no ceiling on compensation, it also means no floor and poor benefits. There is no longer a union to fight for them. Ultimately, the union might hate the new system and re-certify so they can strike.

Nobody knows what will happen, which isn't good for the game. It is good that they will play again, but legally it is clear what is happening. Barring a CBA, the draft and tags are illegal and will have to go. You are assuming they will agree on a new CBA. That may not happen.

[psubills62]

this is part of the decertification of the union.

The issue is anti-trust. The NFL, unlike MLB, doesn't have an anti-trust exemption. By decertifying their union they can make a claim that the Owners are engaging in "price fixing" and that the NFL is just a giant monopoly.

It's a clever legal strategy with one flaw. The NFL is pointing out that if the NFLPA doesn't exist, then they can't negotiate, and they they're still acting like a de facto union. The NFL's argument will probably win the day in the end. Claiming you're not something, then acting like you are, is rarely accepted by the courts.

So while the player's union's strategy might work in the short term, eventually it's going to get undone when the NFL win's it's own cases...
The entire time this process has gone on, I've been sitting here wondering how on earth this decertification process could ever hold up in court. They're a union, plain and simple, and it is beyond a sham to simply claim they aren't during the time of CBA negotiation. If they don't want to be a union now, then they should also be prevented from re-certifying any time in the near future, too (i.e. the next five years or so). This decertification is a sham and always has been, and it's amazing to me that it even gets the light of day legally.

[psubills62]

It's yet another reason why I blame the players and am on the owner's side. If Kessler gets his way, he would win his court case against the NFL and the league would lose a salary cap, free agency, and even the NFL Draft. There would literally be no rules because it would be 32 separate businesses instead of 1 big business and would kill small market teams like Buffalo.
While I agree with you...these opinions seem odd coming from a Yankees fan :D

[Ickybaluky]

Judge Nelson pretty much tossed aside the "sham" argument. It isn't much of a factor anymore.

If this case ends ultimately in a player victory then the result is an NFL with no CBA, no free agency, no draft, no restrictions. It would be 32 teams competing against each other for players in an open market.

The reason the players went that direction in their lawsuit is to gain leverage against the NFL to negotiate a settlement that will result in a new CBA on the terms they find agreeable.

However, I don't think the owners fear losing the CBA as much as the players think. The uncapped year was supposed to be a thing to be feared, but in the end it worked out really well for the owners. An open market means the players lose a lot of the protections they had gained when unionized. No minimum salary, no benefits, no nothing. Just a contract that specifies terms of employment, with each player being an independent contractor. That will work out well for great players, who have rare skills, but not so much for the other players. After the elite players, there isn't as much separating guys. The competition for most players won't drive up salaries enough to offset the loss of other benefits, IMO.

It wouldn't surprise me if the owners see this is a more favorable option to agreeing to a CBA with terms they don't like. It is a real possibility, IMO.

[k-oneputt]

That's why they will have the CBA and in return the owners will get the draft.

[Ickybaluky]

That's why they will have the CBA and in return the owners will get the draft.

What if the owners don't want a CBA?

Everybody assumes the owners want the CBA, but last year was a great year for them because there was no salary cap. Granted, there would be increased uncertainty, but there would also be no restrictions. Some players would get paid a lot of money, others would get a lot less. Teams could have more control over spending.

I think the NFL is playing everyone. They either win their case and get leverage to negotiate for better teams, or lose the case and have a free market. In the latter scenario, it might not be the Armageddon everyone assumes. Players would no longer have a union to represent them.

Maybe the owners decided that they will fight, but if they lose they will just start over with no CBA. It makes sense for them in a lot of ways.

[don137]

It is a negotiating ploy by the players and their lawyers since the league would lose over billions in revenue due to losing many fans and teams if it did not have a draft anymore. However, it does make the players look really bad to the fans since it would ruin the league even if it is a ploy. It just makes what they are asking for ridiculous in the eyes of many fans.

[k-oneputt]

As stated, no CBA would crush the average player. no minimum salary, who knows what they would play for.
No CBA will also hurt the league because it will eventually become baseball with a handful of teams able to win and teams like the Bills will become the Pitts. Pirates.
That's how I see it at least.

[DraftBoy]

To answer the basic question that was first asked, its going after it because the draft in principle is highly illegal.

[better days]

What if the owners don't want a CBA?

Everybody assumes the owners want the CBA, but last year was a great year for them because there was no salary cap. Granted, there would be increased uncertainty, but there would also be no restrictions. Some players would get paid a lot of money, others would get a lot less. Teams could have more control over spending.

I think the NFL is playing everyone. They either win their case and get leverage to negotiate for better teams, or lose the case and have a free market. In the latter scenario, it might not be the Armageddon everyone assumes. Players would no longer have a union to represent them.

Maybe the owners decided that they will fight, but if they lose they will just start over with no CBA. It makes sense for them in a lot of ways.


I'm sure owners such as Kraft, Snyder & Jones would be very happy with no CBA. The NFL however would soon devolve into a situation like Baseball where there are a few teams like the Pats*, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants & a few others such as LA & Chicago that will spend much more than the small market teams can afford & the vast majority of teams have no real shot to win it all.

If that happens the NFL will lose the passion of a great number of fans from small market teams & the popularity of the NFL will greatly diminish much like the popularity of baseball & the NBA has diminished which will lead to less money for the league as a whole & therefore less money for players in general.

[Saratoga Slim]

Now, their real strategy is to get the NFL to agree to a new CBA at terms they find acceptable. They think the NFL will give concessions to avoid losing the draft, FA and all the rules of the CBA. If the NFL digs in and they dont' agree, then they will continue down the road and head to an open market, because that is what is legal without any CBA or anti-trust exemption.


Yes, I think we're in agreement. My point is that there's no reason to get caught up in worst case scenarios at this point. Neither side wants the worst case scenarios of no draft, unrestricted FA etc. The players' lawyers' strategy is as you say, to convince the league that they want it and they'll get it if they keep going with the litigation. Their hope is that this forces the league's hand into backing off the demand for the extra $$ etc., and entering a new CBA on terms similar to the old one. The key is making the league take the threat seriously, and that's why you're hearing what you're hearing.

You're right - theoretically, the threat is out there if the league decides to call the players' bluff. I just don't think it will get that far. I do this (litigation) for a living, and will be shocked if we see this end in any meaningful change to the basic competitive framework.

[Ickybaluky]

Yes, I think we're in agreement. My point is that there's no reason to get caught up in worst case scenarios at this point. Neither side wants the worst case scenarios of no draft, unrestricted FA etc. The players' lawyers' strategy is as you say, to convince the league that they want it and they'll get it if they keep going with the litigation. Their hope is that this forces the league's hand into backing off the demand for the extra $$ etc., and entering a new CBA on terms similar to the old one. The key is making the league take the threat seriously, and that's why you're hearing what you're hearing.

You're right - theoretically, the threat is out there if the league decides to call the players' bluff. I just don't think it will get that far. I do this (litigation) for a living, and will be shocked if we see this end in any meaningful change to the basic competitive framework.

I guess we do agree, sorry for drawing it out. I don't think it gets that far either, just saying the possibility is out there.

The owners strategy in all of this has been curious. They seemed to think they can litigate it out long enough and keep a lockout in place, shifting leverage their way. Even with appeal, there is a pretty good chance that lockout strategy is out the window and players will come back to work. That means they are back to the bargaining table with less leverage.

I just find it hard to believe they went this far down the road and that was all they had. I almost wonder if they will be stubborn and eventually go with the free market/dump the CBA just to prove to the players it won't be good for them either. I know that is silly, but nothing really makes sense with the way they have handled this negotiation.

It is just a conspiracy theory and makes no sense, but if teams refrain from making trades involving future draft picks, it will make me think they aren't sure there will be a draft. It is like the NFL will litigate and then just accept the consequences when they lose.

But you are right, I doubt they would do that because there would be unfavorable outcomes for them as well.

[Mike]

the nfl would shrink. players would then get paid less, even the good ones. wtf are they thinking...


The good ones and the great ones will get paid far more. Plus, there might not be any contracts, players with leverage may want long term deals or very short term deals if they are younger. Prices for talent will go up, way up, and it wont be just about big markets it will be about big bucks, so you better be where the money is, or have an owner whose willing to spend tons of it.

[Saratoga Slim]

I guess we do agree, sorry for drawing it out. I don't think it gets that far either, just saying the possibility is out there.

The owners strategy in all of this has been curious. They seemed to think they can litigate it out long enough and keep a lockout in place, shifting leverage their way. Even with appeal, there is a pretty good chance that lockout strategy is out the window and players will come back to work. That means they are back to the bargaining table with less leverage.

I just find it hard to believe they went this far down the road and that was all they had. I almost wonder if they will be stubborn and eventually go with the free market/dump the CBA just to prove to the players it won't be good for them either. I know that is silly, but nothing really makes sense with the way they have handled this negotiation.

It is just a conspiracy theory and makes no sense, but if teams refrain from making trades involving future draft picks, it will make me think they aren't sure there will be a draft. It is like the NFL will litigate and then just accept the consequences when they lose.

But you are right, I doubt they would do that because there would be unfavorable outcomes for them as well.

I think the owners are really shocked that the injunction was granted. The lockout was the lynchpin of their strategy. Bet there's a lot of re-thinking going on right now.

Fingers crossed that cooler heads prevail. And that Jerry, Dan and the like don't start to daydream about becoming the Yankees of a new, different NFL.