ARROWHEAD DRIVE
Log in and make your voice heard! Quit lurking and Register!


Best source for up to the minute Chiefs news, updates, rumors, and inside information!
 
Home  Calendar  FAQ  Usergroups  ArcadeArcade  Register  Log in  
Poll
Who is it?
 Geno Smith
 Luke Joekel
 Domontre Moore
 Jarvis Jones
 Manti Te'o
 Star Lotulelei
 Tyler Wilson
 Other
View results
Latest topics
» Naruto Shippuden Season 5 (English Dub)
Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:05 pm by tamger

» Jordi-nio-polla-dscargar-gratis
Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:23 pm by tamger

» Rihanna Russian Roulette
Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:06 pm by tamger

» Bitdefender Total Security 2015 License Key And Serial Key
Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:19 am by tamger

» Psiphon For 64bit Windows 7
Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:06 am by tamger

Advertisement

Share | 
 

 If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
RustShack
Giver of Life
Giver of Life
avatar

Posts : 4463
Join date : 2010-03-25
Age : 28
Location : Iowa

PostSubject: If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.   Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:32 pm

There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams.

Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.

For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.

For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.

Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.

Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.

In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.

Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.

In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.

Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...526726626.html

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.arrowheaddrive.com
FatThucker
All-Pro
All-Pro


Posts : 753
Join date : 2010-04-01

PostSubject: Re: If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.   Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:13 pm

I don't know why we even let women drive, yet they can single handedly destroy the NFL
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chiefs09
All-Madden
All-Madden


Posts : 2316
Join date : 2010-03-27

PostSubject: Re: If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.   Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:08 am

lol. this isnt the first time the players have decertified. The last time they decertified it brought us the free agency that we have today. If they didnt have this right then theyd have no chance against the owners. The ownes haven't negotiated in good faith from the beginning. The owners had this plan set in motion when they signed the previous CBA. I think the only thing that we wont have on the next CBA that we had on the last one is the cap. Dont believe all the crap coming out of the mouths of either side. And Goodell is definitely on the owners side.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
chiefbravebull
All-Pro
All-Pro
avatar

Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-04-08
Location : Creston, IA

PostSubject: Re: If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.   Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:28 pm

If any of this shit goes down I am done with the NFL and the NFL will go down the shitters. This is what a league like the UFL has been hoping would happen to the NFL. College football will be my main focus though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chiefs09
All-Madden
All-Madden


Posts : 2316
Join date : 2010-03-27

PostSubject: Re: If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.   Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:27 pm

I wish I could honestly say the same. But I know when the NFL does come back I will watch once again. Way too addictive. I guess if it gets to be like MLB where the small markets dont have a real chance year in and year out I might not watch. Personally I like college more anyway. Every week counts in college. It will get worked out. If we miss preseason games who cares. At least it's not the NBA. Those fans are going to miss at least 1 season, if not more.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.   

Back to top Go down
 
If the courts ruling stands, NFL ruined.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» More Side Stands
» Ruling on hitting consecutive shots into OB.
» Bodo on slow courts and Federer
» Metal Gear: Rising Sun - Have They Ruined Metal Gear?
» Murray Says Fast Courts Suit Federer

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
ARROWHEAD DRIVE :: The Lounge-
Jump to: