What's going on with the TV money?

[Guiness]

That's interesting. It makes me think that the NFL wasn't quite as shady as it initially appears with the lockout guarantee stuff. If they need that revenue to avoid defaulting on loans by definition, it would seem like a somewhat reasonable contract provision to include in those TV contracts. I doubt the old CBA mandated that they have to maximize shared revenue in the short term even to the point that it could endanger their financial health in other ways. That would be very short-sighted.

As far as the lockout being something that is done at the discretion of the owners, it is, but it is a tool that they need to have available when dealing with a union. If they can't lock the players out without defaulting on large loans, and the players know they can't, the players can demand anything they want; and the NFL would face the option of either accepting whatever terms the players dictate by the start of the season, or defaulting on their loans. Both are options that could potentially jeopardize the financial health of the league. It seems unfair to allow the players the leverage to put the NFL into a lose-lose situation like that. Assuming those loans are significant, anyway.

As PBmax pointed out, they put themselves in the lose-lose situation you describe.

They signed loans with the clauses mentioned above.
They signed the CBA that obligated them to maximize revenue at all times.

Then they added 1 and 1, got 2 and did the slow 'oh shit' moment.

[Guiness]

Any decision a business owner makes affects their employees. Does your question infer that you believe employees should have a say in any decision that affects the finances of the business? If a consumer goods company contracts a PR firm to make ads for that company, should they allow their employee unions to dictate the terms of the contract with the PR firm?

I believe the league makes decisions based on whats best for the league, the growth and popularity of the league is ample evidence of that - what will lead to financial success, growth, and stability. The players have no such interest. Their interest lies solely in making as much money for themselves as possible without regard for the success, growth, or stability of their respective team or the league. If they have any such interest, either individually or collectively, I haven't seen it.

As I've said, the league makes the decisions that are best for the league as a whole. Isolating the decisions that don't favor the players over owners and attempting to have a court change those decisions so that they favor the players hardly seems like a sound way to grow, or even maintain, the success of the league.

I don't think you can use the 'any business' argument here. The NFL isn't any business, it's a unique business with unique rules, and a workforce that has a big stake and say in the going ons. I don't think you're going to find too many other businesses out there that determine how much they pay their employees as a proportional %age of revenue! Can you imagine going to your boss, telling him you noticed sales are up 10%, so you expect a raise?

I think in this case, the league made a decision that solely benefited the owners, and not the players at all. They could just of easily made a deal that put $x dollars in their pockets, and $x dollars in the players fund in order to keep both sides afloat in the event of a work stoppage. I doubt they gave that idea a whole hell of a lot of consideration...

[MJZiggy]

Any decision a business owner makes affects their employees. Does your question infer that you believe employees should have a say in any decision that affects the finances of the business? If a consumer goods company contracts a PR firm to make ads for that company, should they allow their employee unions to dictate the terms of the contract with the PR firm?

I believe the league makes decisions based on whats best for the league, the growth and popularity of the league is ample evidence of that - what will lead to financial success, growth, and stability. The players have no such interest. Their interest lies solely in making as much money for themselves as possible without regard for the success, growth, or stability of their respective team or the league. If they have any such interest, either individually or collectively, I haven't seen it.

As I've said, the league makes the decisions that are best for the league as a whole. Isolating the decisions that don't favor the players over owners and attempting to have a court change those decisions so that they favor the players hardly seems like a sound way to grow, or even maintain, the success of the league.

I don't think that this is quite the same as a manufacturing company contracting a PR firm. This is a decision that cost both the league and the players money for the sole purpose of benefiting the owners in the event of a work stoppage. How far do you think that would have gotten the manufacturing company if the union found out that management was costing the union and the employees money so that management could minimize its own financial risk at the expense of the employees should they choose to have a lockout? That's not working in the financial interests of all parties. It's going to be an interesting summer.

[Guiness]

I don't think that this is quite the same as a manufacturing company contracting a PR firm. This is a decision that cost both the league and the players money for the sole purpose of benefiting the owners in the event of a work stoppage. How far do you think that would have gotten the manufacturing company if the union found out that management was costing the union and the employees money so that management could minimize its own financial risk at the expense of the employees should they choose to have a lockout? That's not working in the financial interests of all parties. It's going to be an interesting summer.

Pile on top of that scenario a company that has an aggressive profit sharing setup, and you're getting even closer.

[SkinBasket]

I don't think that this is quite the same as a manufacturing company contracting a PR firm. This is a decision that cost both the league and the players money for the sole purpose of benefiting the owners in the event of a work stoppage. How far do you think that would have gotten the manufacturing company if the union found out that management was costing the union and the employees money so that management could minimize its own financial risk at the expense of the employees should they choose to have a lockout? That's not working in the financial interests of all parties. It's going to be an interesting summer.

No it's not the same. No example will be. But the players are fighting an anti-trust fight in the hopes of being treated like non-union employees that fall under the exact same labor laws any other non-unionized employee does. Yet, they, and others, still argue they should have special bargaining rights, like having a part in negotiating business decisions to their favor - to the detriment of the owners, that most labor unions could only dream of negotiating into a CBA. You continue to disregard ownership as a "party" in their own negotiations, measuring only the hypothetical damage to the players, who knew a long time ago just as well as the owners did that a stoppage was more than likely this summer.

So the question for you becomes: where do you draw the line between ownership and employee? Using your criteria of "decisions that affect employees" entirely eliminates ownership's ability to make any kind of decision that benefits the business (and by extension, *gasp* the employee), so I think we need something a little less socialistic than that. What rights do an owner have in your mind?

[SkinBasket]

I think in this case, the league made a decision that solely benefited the owners, and not the players at all. They could just of easily made a deal that put $x dollars in their pockets, and $x dollars in the players fund in order to keep both sides afloat in the event of a work stoppage. I doubt they gave that idea a whole hell of a lot of consideration...

And why would they? The players had already bargained for their rights and pay. If they wanted a "rainy day fund" to get paid for not doing work, maybe they should have had the same obvious forethought the league did. It's not like this work stoppage took anyone by surprise. The difference is that the league used it's resources to plan for the possibility of it. The players invested in gold and diamonds, one of which should have been a sound enough investment to see them through the stoppage.

This idea that as a union, the players were entitled to a share of anything they want above and beyond what was in the CBA, and now as a [not]union they have an even greater entitlement to any and all league resources isn't backed by any kind of logic outside of, "Well, that's just not fair!" which is usually derived from nothing more than a pseudo-political socioeconomic belief in workers rights over owner's rights.

[pbmax]

The owner's have all their rights except those they specifically agreed to curtail in the CBA. The same CBA that was in effect during the 2009 TV negotiations. The CBA language did not specify they need to maximize revenue in such a way that benefits the owners long term. You can argue that would be the preferred model. But that wasn't what they agreed to do. The agreed to maximize revenue for both players and owners, not reduce revenue in order to fund an effort to reduce costs. You may not agree with this as a business strategy, but it is what the owners have agreed to do since 1993.

A successful lockout may produce a CBA that ensures a more viable league. But that doesn't mean the owner's were not limited in the actions they could take by language they agreed to in the 2006 CBA.

[SkinBasket]

Ironically, the test of all this conjecture is to take the League to bare bones agreements and fight for all resources as 32 individual clubs. It would look more like baseball, but it would weed out weaker teams and markets and probably finally put a team in LA.

Well, that's kind of the problem I had with your original supposition: that the "damages" the players are seeking are little more than conjecture. Without being able to prove that the league and the players would be better off financially had they negotiated the TV deal more "in favor of the players," or in other words, not hedging their financial risk for a very possible and predictable work stoppage in order to protect their business which answers to a much greater number employees, investors, and others with a financial stake in the team than solely the players, there's not even a way to show that the league didn't act in the greater interest of all parties.

But I also don't think that's the point. The point is for the players to use the courts to hold as much of the league's resources hostage as possible to improve their negotiating position.

[pbmax]

This idea that as a union, the players were entitled to a share of anything they want above and beyond what was in the CBA, and now as a [not]union they have an even greater entitlement to any and all league resources isn't backed by any kind of logic outside of, "Well, that's just not fair!" which is usually derived from nothing more than a pseudo-political socioeconomic belief in workers rights over owner's rights.

No one has made this argument except you. The players bargained for what they got and made concessions to get there. At no point did any party get "anything they want and beyond" and there is no evidence that they players will get money that was not covered by the 2006 CBA. This is simply hyperbole.

If the owners wanted to be able to structure contacts any way they saw fit, then they shouldn't have signed on to the language. Through concessions, they could have changed the language to be open to lockout funding.

My suspicion is that the owners liked the language because it would entail the cooperation of the players in securing more revenue for the League (likeness rights, video games, rebroadcasts, PR, etc.) This is simply another battle about what is permissible given the agree to contract language.

[pbmax]

Well, that's kind of the problem I had with your original supposition: that the "damages" the players are seeking are little more than conjecture. Without being able to prove that the league and the players would be better off financially had they negotiated the TV deal more "in favor of the players," or in other words, not hedging their financial risk for a very possible and predictable work stoppage in order to protect their business which answers to a much greater number employees, investors, and others with a financial stake in the team than solely the players, there's not even a way to show that the league didn't act in the greater interest of all parties.

But I also don't think that's the point. The point is for the players to use the courts to hold as much of the league's resources hostage as possible to improve their negotiating position.

Is there really a difference between using the court to provide leverage and protecting their rights? If there was nothing to be gained, who would be in court?

I think there is evidence already entered of the potential for contracts without that language. Both the previous TV deals and the extensions after the fact. Measuring the damage will be comparatively easy than deciding what to do about the actual payments.

[SkinBasket]

No one has made this argument except you. The players bargained for what they got and made concessions to get there. At no point did any party get "anything they want and beyond" and there is no evidence that they players will get money that was not covered by the 2006 CBA. This is simply hyperbole.

If the owners wanted to be able to structure contacts any way they saw fit, then they shouldn't have signed on to the language. Through concessions, they could have changed the language to be open to lockout funding.

My suspicion is that the owners liked the language because it would entail the cooperation of the players in securing more revenue for the League (likeness rights, video games, rebroadcasts, PR, etc.) This is simply another battle about what is permissible given the agree to contract language.

What CBA? There isn't a union. Like I said, the players want to be a [non]union, are arguing in court and in front of the NLRB that they are not a union, and still want to get everything they bargained for as a union, without a CBA. Not sure how the 2011 TV money would be covered by anything except whatever contract is in place between the league and the networks, which the players may have been able to grieve when they actually were a union with a CBA for which the league to violate.

[SkinBasket]

It comes to mind that I should clarify what money I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the players rights to the 2011 money, not the damages. If there are damages levied to those previous seasons - the 7 million or whatever was ruled before this judge overruled that decision, that would be money that I don't have a problem being awarded. Not sure how the players make the jump from 7 million to 700, but then again, you can't really ask the courts to hold the entire 4 billion hostage if you're only on the line for 7 million.

[SkinBasket]

At no point did any party get "anything they want and beyond" and there is no evidence that they players will get money that was not covered by the 2006 CBA. This is simply hyperbole.

Really? They only want 70% of the 2011 TV contract...

The players’ request for compensatory damages was redacted in court documents, and their lawyers never specified the amount while in open court Thursday. Thomas J. Heiden, co-counsel for the players, revealed the figure, $707 million, to reporters after the hearing. The players are also seeking three times that amount in punitive damages, about $2.1 billion.

[swede]

The players’ request for compensatory damages was redacted in court documents, and their lawyers never specified the amount while in open court Thursday. Thomas J. Heiden, co-counsel for the players, revealed the figure, $707 million, to reporters after the hearing. The players are also seeking three times that amount in punitive damages, about $2.1 billion.

Hmmm...

DeMaurice Smith: Mr. Goodell, after I destroy the Washington Redskins... I will destroy another major team every hour on the hour. That is, unless, of course, you pay me... one hundred billion dollars.

Roger Goodell: [bursts with laughter] Mr. Smith, this isn't 3011! That amount of money doesn't even exist in the NFL. That's like saying, "I want a kajillion bajillion dollars."

DeMaurice Smith: Fine. I'll take 2.1 billion dollars.

[pbmax]

What CBA? There isn't a union. Like I said, the players want to be a [non]union, are arguing in court and in front of the NLRB that they are not a union, and still want to get everything they bargained for as a union, without a CBA. Not sure how the 2011 TV money would be covered by anything except whatever contract is in place between the league and the networks, which the players may have been able to grieve when they actually were a union with a CBA for which the league to violate.

Can't any contractual obligations as a legal matter extend beyond the expiration of a deal? If I owe you money as a result of a contract covering 2009, certainly it would be within your right to attempt to collect that money through legal means beyond calendar 2009?