But there's another group that stands to lose big time from these labor negotiations: this year's NFL rookie class. This week, it was reported that the NFLPA asked the top pro prospects to skip the NFL Draft as a sign of solidarity towards the current NFL players. Today it seems like the NFLPA has changed its tune: while the Players Association won't have the rookies-to-be boycott the event, it did acknowledge that the draft experience this year would be "different." One possible example:
Agent Tom Condon, who represents quarterback Blaine Gabbert -- currently tabbed as the No. 1 overall pick by ESPN NFL draft expert Mel Kiper in his latest mock draft -- told ESPN's "SportsCenter" that the NFLPA might hold an "alternative event" for the players who will be drafted.Regardless of what this "alternative" NFL Draft experience will entail, it's a shame both for the fans and for the prospective NFL draftees. It's clear that the NFLPA is using current college students - who currently have no bargaining power and are not yet part of the NFL, let alone the Players Association - as pawns in its game of chess with the league. And while I'm sure the current players are pressuring their college counterparts to team up with them against the NFL, you can be sure that when it comes time for a compromise during negotations this summer (or fall . . .), the first thing the veteran-controlled NFLPA will give in on will be lowering the rookie salary scale. The rookies' reward for standing by the NFL veterans will likely be a significant pay cut.
It's also a very shortsighted move by the NFL. Football players get comparatively few opportunities to show their faces and personalities to the world - they wear helmets when they play and, outside of a few star skill-position players, are more or less treated as commodities. The NFL Draft is a player's introduction to the league, and the opportunity to showcase the player side of the league to millions of fans. Without the rookies actually in attendance, the NFL Draft becomes (even more) like a fantasy draft, where random combinations of names and colleges are announced without any smiling faces, ridiculous three-piece suits or fedoras to accompany them.
Without the players at the draft, you can bet no one will be wearing a black suit, shirt and tie.
If the NFLPA is smart, they'll have the Draft go on as planned. Regardless of the status of the current labor negotiations, this draft is happening next month - the Players Association might as well get on board and take advantage of some free player publicity before heading into what is sure to be a long, ugly and unpopular battle with the league and teams.
7 comments:
But what do you think about each side's demands? What do you think are the real issues behind the stalemate? Yes, there are two sides to every story, but based on publicly available information, which side do you tend to sympathize with? I'd be curious to hear your take given your experience with labor negotiations.
Good question and maybe / likely a post for another day. For now: I don't know enough about the particulars to say for sure. There's something to be said for the owners bearing all of the risk of the business while the players (collectively, not individually) bear none. This might be the most effective way to split the risk (as I recently learned in my economics class), but it's not exactly "fair" to the owners. This is basically portrayed as a revenue / profit share where one side gets the bulk of the revenues and none of the expenses, which just intuitively seems odd.
So, in light / in spite of my experience at the NBA, I sympathize more with the owners. At the end of the day, they are trying to run and grow a legitimate business and the players are unwilling / unable to understand that the long-run sustainability and growth of the league depends on continued franchise profitability. This is much more of an issue in the NBA, though - most teams in the NFL (if not all) are profitable, so it's not clear how this could possibly NT be revolved before the season is set to start . . .
Hey Matt,
You'll definitely have to explain how "owners are bearing all of the risk of the business." I don't get that one at all.
My take on the NBA and NFL CBA negotiations is that both leagues are finally trying to emulate general American business over the last 30 years, when it comes to management-labor relations. Both leagues, through their CBA's, seek to facilitate the upwards redistribution of income. Owners are effectively trying to take money out of players pockets in order to pad their own.
To "run and grow a legitimate business" in this day and age means that an organization disconnects the link between worker pay and worker productivity, allowing management to capture all gains. Since it is difficult/impossible/irrelevant to determine the "productivity" of an athlete, disconnecting worker pay and worker productivity is applied differently. Here, the owners goal is to disconnect worker pay from increases in demand, "demand" being defined as fan interest in the game.
With more fan interest, the MRP of players increases, not because their productivity increases, but because additional fans increase marginal revenue, resulting in an increase in demand for the players labor. Ordinarily, when demand rises, so do wages. However, in an attempt to emulate a "legitimate American business," owners seek to disconnect this link, causing increased demand not to result in increases wages, but only increased profits, captured entirely by owners.
So, clearly, I hope that both the NBPA and NFLPA remain united, and don't fold even if it means missed games.
Concerning the NBA CBA specifically, I do see an end-game compromise through which both sides should be satisfied. Addressing the owners complaints about "over-payments" to players who get hurt and don't live up to their contract, as well as the leagues desire for shorter contracts and shorter guaranteed years, what do you think about the idea of mandatory team AND player options, for contracts that exceed 4 years in length or $60MM?
The insertion of mandatory “opt-out” clauses in contracts that fit these criteria would allow owners a second chance to evaluate large and/or lengthy player contracts and decide for themselves whether or not to see it through. I think that the “opt-out” clause should become a mandatory feature of contracts that exceed four years in length because this has the potential to set four years as the de facto length of maximum contracts, achieving one of the owners goals. This would also “protect owners from themselves” and provide less assurance only to the very best NBA players, who are the only ones would quality for contracts of that length or include guarantees upwards of $60M.
Already, with maximum payment limits in place, LeBron James is probably the most underpaid professional athlete in all of sports. There is no way that on the open market, he doesn’t fetch less than $30M a year. The current CBA allows him to play for just a fraction of his worth, while allowing teams to over-pay more mediocre players. The “opt-out” clause would allow these owners even more protection against themselves.
what do you think about this article?
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/03/21/110321ta_talk_surowiecki?printable=true
A quick response:
1. Increasing marginal revenue to the NBA and NFL does increase wages, because in both of those leagues the total salary caps (and thus salary floor, in the NFL's case) are directly tied to a percentage on league revenues. So, in this respect the goals are perfectly aligned - both sides should be concerned about growing the pie.
2. Where they are not aligned is on the cost side - playres are receiving a cut of revenue, while owners have tocover all of the expenses. So while owners are businessmen who want to lower costs, players have no incentive to support them. This is a problem, especially in the NBA.
3. There is a baseline amount of total salaries that must be paid out in the NFL. While an individual player can be released, he must be replaced my someone else and total salaries must remain at or above some minimal level. So, collectively as one body, the Players Association is guaranteed a percentage of revenue. As long as revenue is growing / stable, they're fine, whereas large costs can destroy the owners' business model.
4. I would say in opt-out clause in NBA contracts is, at least right now, a complete non-starter. That might change after a few months of lockout, but right now don't count on it.
5. Agreed that LeBron is underpaid. Unfortunately, 80% of guys are overpaid by the same logic (what incremental dollar value does Mike Miller add to the Heat, for example?). So you could keep the same total salaries and reallocate to make things less equitable, but I don't think the NBPA would like that too much . . .
Thanks for your response! It's clear that you're knowledgeable and have some inside scoops based on your experience, so I appreciate you sharing.
Why would you say that the opt-out is a non-starter? Would that be a non-starter from the NBPA's perspective? Or from the league's as well? To me it seems that the opt-out would address the owner's goals of shorter contracts and less guaranteed money, while placing the additional risk solely on the star players who would be offered these kind of contracts.
Post a Comment