What's going on with the TV money?

[Guiness]

Does anyone know what's going on with the $4 billion or so the league was supposed to get, even if there is no football to televise? There was a judge's decision that they couldn't have it, at least temporarily, does that decision still stand? I hadn't heard anything different, but this article confuses me.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15056902/players-seek-707mplus-judge-delays-ruling

Maybe the owners haven't started receiving payments towards the money, and won't until games are scheduled to start?

[pbmax]

The judge found for the players in the initial trial. That means the TV money (in the form of an advanced payment) that would have been paid in the event of no games is in limbo. He is now considering the remedies after a hearing last week. The players asked him to escrow the money away for the owners and pay damages to the players. He commented that escrowing the payouts would be putting his thumb on the scale of negotiations. It would give the players the leverage of blocking access to over $4 billion.

But he could still do many different things, including apply previous CBA language to money received during the lockout. Which would mean that segments of cash paid would be subject to a 57.5 (CBS figure) or 59.6 (PFT's figure) percent going to the players. The logic being that this money was left on the table during negotiations in 2009, before the lockout was implemented and would have been paid out in part during that CBA if not for the league seeking to acquire "Lockout insurance".

[Guiness]

Thanks PB.

You cleared up the part that confused my with you 'in limbo' comment. You're saying that this is essentially a continuation of the earlier case which resulted in denying owners access to the money.

Putting the money in escrow would indeed influence the negotiations, but so would releasing the money to the owners.

The thought that he could apply previous CBA language to that money is big BIG Big. Can you imagine if he decided to apply some split to it? 57 or 59, either number would result in the 'players' getting $2billion+.

I put players in quotations, because who, exactly, are the 'players' right now? Where would that money go? How would it be distributed? I mean, the NFLPA is gone and all. If you try and start distributing it, who gets it, and how much? The NFL considers everyone not under contract with a team to be a free agent...meaning I have the same status as Peyton Manning

[pbmax]

The old NFLPA and the previous CBA still have a stake here since, presumably, some of the money left on the table to provide income during a lockout would have been available to the players during 2009 and 2010. So that percentage of player cost revenue could come into play though it likely would not be for the whole $4 billion. Only a portion of that number would have been spent in 09 and 10 and the rest would have been spent in '11, '12 and beyond, depending on which TV contract you are looking at.

Its also likely that the $4 billion is not the true amount the NFL left on the table for the lockout arrangements. Some of that money (if not all) gets paid back when the league DOES resume games.

But then the players could also collect damages, apart from any contractual money awarded.

[bobblehead]

I ask yet again. Why would or should we do anything under the old CBA. The players decertified and it has no bearing on anything because of that very action. I somewhat supported the douchebag judge who ruled against the injunction, but now we are getting to the point of applying the law in one area and ignoring it in others.....whichever benefits the players.

[Tarlam!]

I ask why should the TV stations pay for nothing? Isn't itlike ordering a pizza that never gets delivere, but the pizzeria is still asking for payment?

[get louder at lambeau]

I ask why should the TV stations pay for nothing? Isn't itlike ordering a pizza that never gets delivere, but the pizzeria is still asking for payment?

Because that pizza might be the difference between eating well and starving. Without the NFL, a network can fall behind the other networks and lose a ton of revenue. It's the biggest piece of live programming in the TV market, by far.

[Tarlam!]

Call me stupid, but, why am I supposed to pay for nothing?

[get louder at lambeau]

Call me stupid, but, why am I supposed to pay for nothing?

You don't have to pay. You just have to watch some Budweiser commercials.

The networks, on the other hand, can't afford to lose an NFL broadcasting contract to a rival, so they have to pay for whatever the NFL tells them they have to pay for, as long as the contract still positively affects their station financially overall.

[Tarlam!]

Over here, I have to pay. It's a package of channels, but I only get to see the featured games. And, damnit, I don't get to watch the commercials you guys do!

Other than that I'm hoping your homeland security screws up or I'm reduced to subscribing to NFL.com. The point is, if there is no football, then there is no figurative pizza. Do the networks still need to pay in that case?

PS: The Super Bowl is broadcast for free, but have you ever heard German commentary of an American sport? YUCH!!!!!!!

[swede]

Tar, American Homeland Security intercepted this cell phone call. The NFL and Homeland Security are both concerned about increasing levels of consumer chatter on cell phones and internet. This chatter may indicate an upswing in unauthorized streaming transmissions of really good football games by American expatriates once the Germans introduce their legally licensed, NFL sanctioned plan called the "Sgt. Schultz Effect" in which German announcers are deliberately selected for knowing nothing. In trial runs of the diabolical plot, several of the announcers thought they were overdubbing "Dancing with the Stars", advancing themselves to the final rounds of consideration.

Ja ja, mutter...Ich bin der neue Ansager für amerikanischen Fußball und ich weiß nichts über amerikanischen Fußball! Ha-ha!

[SkinBasket]

Essentially the players want a judge to hamstring the owners even further as a negotiation tool. There seems, at least publicly, to be no legal reasoning behind their request, other than they think it'll weaken the owner's position. I'm suuuuuuuuuure the judge will do the right thing. You know, apply law to a case. Right?

The players continue to argue they are decertified while demanding all the rights and privileges of being a union under a CBA. It's almost like this whole decertification was... I don't know... a sham? Maybe?

[pbmax]

The reasoning behind this isn't complicated. The TV contracts were renegotiated in 2009. For two years of those deals, the players were covered by the CBA.

The NFL admitted (Goodell on the stand, among others), and indeed, submitted memo and email evidence under discovery, that they took less money in the extended deals in order to secure payments in the event of a lockout. Doing this, they violated a legally binding arrangement in which the owners are expected to maximize revenues for all parties in all cases. It was a rather straightforward case and another example that the NFL is usually its own worst legal enemy. However, the ruling will still be subject to appeals.

What is far more complicated is how to resolve the financial implication of the case. Assessing damages might be the easiest task, as extrapolating money left on the table (in light of even newer contracts signed since then) will provide guidance.

But how to handle the $4 billion is a much thornier question.

[get louder at lambeau]

The point is, if there is no football, then there is no figurative pizza. Do the networks still need to pay in that case?

Yes, the TV contracts they negotiated say the networks still need to pay them if there is no football for 2011, but the NFL would pay them back at some point in the future. That's how the NFL prepared for a lockout season financially, and the players are saying that it violated the CBA for the NFL to negotiate TV contracts that way instead of trying to maximize the shared total revenue.

[pbmax]

Only a portion of the lockout payments were to be repaid. From Doty's initial decision (via PFT):

Quote, as to the deal with DirecTV: “Of the total amount payable in the event of a canceled season, 42% of that fee is nonrefundable and the remainder would be credited to the following season.”

Interpretation: Of the money that the NFL would collect from DirecTV during a 2011 lockout, only 58 cents of each dollar would be repaid. Thus, to the extent that men like NFL general counsel Jeff Pash have insisted that these payments constitute loans and nothing more, Pash has overlooked the fact that 42 cents of every dollar paid by DirecTV during a lockout would be free money.

Its deal with Verizon for lockout payments was non-refundable. The League also granted an extra year to the contracts if there was a season cancelled due to work stoppage in 2011.

Lastly, the language that speaks against this type of contract (both parties agree to act in good faith in increase Total Revenues) is in the CBA, Article X, Section 1(a)(i).

The courts did not do this to the League, the NFL did this to themselves.