A rushed deal is not a good deal

NFL players should resist owners’ push

NFL players are being rushed into signing a new 10-year Collective Bargaining Agreement that is 130 pages larger than the old agreement.

Under threat of a lockout, the rank and file is being rushed, coerced into voting for or against a long-term contract that isn’t even supported by the NFL Players Association’s Executive Counsel.

My concern isn’t about whether the deal is good or bad, or who it takes care of.

Billionaires and their CEOs, CFOs and teams of lawyers are trying to get a new television deal before the way people watch shows and sporting events completely changes.

They want it done before sports gambling is officially legal all throughout the United States.

So, sign on the dotted line please.

Sincerely, The Owners.

My concern is why they are being rushed by the man they elected, the men they hired and some of those they appointed to represent them in this critical negotiations.

Putting a vote on the table in 12 days about a 456-page document most players haven’t had the time, ability, or legal

understanding to grasp is dangerous.

Your representation is supposed to brief you.

But the NFLPA representatives haven’t had time to comb through the document delivered on Thursday, and neither has their agents.

Nobody has had the ability to compare language of this new deal to language of the last new deal, and 130 new pages hints plenty of changes were made.

The players are supposed to trust the NFLPA’s leadership and legal counsel. Who exactly are they looking out for? The retired players? The wealthy 179 players who actually earn more than $4.25 million? Or the average starter, players barely holding on or on the practice squad?

What the NFLPA and the mainstream media want them to know is despite having to play 17 games, this new deal benefits you because most players get an immediate $100,000 raise, better benefits, better health care, lighter practices. The NFLPA gets more money, 1.5 percent more of NFL’s $11 billion in annual revenue.

Over the course of 10 years that equates to roughly $1.65 billion, and it will likely grow because of sports gambling and a new TV deal.

Oh, and players now get to smoke marijuana without penalty. Celebration time, right? The league and every one of its partners, which will profit from football’s continued growth, want you to know exactly what’s in the 455-page document that benefits you. But do players know what’s coming out of it?

Do players know what language is changing?

The NFLPA representatives — much less Dolphins quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick, who recently endorsed it with a yes vote — haven’t had enough time to comb through the deal.

That is why it would be wise for them to hold the vote, or vote NO until the NFLPA hires an independent body, one that isn’t associated with the NFL or its partners, to compare and contrast, delivering a second opinion.

There are sports law institutes that will teach lessons about this deal for a decade. Thesis papers will be written about it. Maybe those legal minds should take a stab at it on the NFLPA’s behalf?

I’m positive some Harvard or Yale law professor would love to compare and contrast the proposed deal, especially if given a team of contract experts from all the major sports agencies to look through it.

These people study this kind of thing for a living. NFL players read playbooks for a living.

Why would anyone want to watch lawyers play football? The same principle should be applied to this 456-page document, which put me to sleep after skimming 40 pages.

That independent report would be more beneficial to the rank and file than listening to NFLPA’s summaries, talking it out with players like Fitzpatrick, who haven’t read the contract in its entirety, and then issuing this critical vote in 12 days, before it spoils the March 18 start of free agency.

Players need to apply some common sense to this.

Whenever you feel rushed at a car dealership, the odds are pretty high that you’re not getting the best deal. Maybe it isn’t a bad deal, but is it the best?

The NFLPA claim this deal is what the majority of players asked for. Are we sure?

Why not have someone give this proposed 10-year contract a second look?

Why vote based on how ESPN, NFL Network, ProFootballTalk or CBS summarizes what the deal says, or what your agent suggests after being threatened by the NFLPA last week?

Aren’t they all partners with the league? Wouldn’t a partner benefit from players entering into a 10-year deal that turns out to be bad one, much like the last one?

Don’t sign it and the owners will allegedly take this deal off the table. They want you to conclude it was too good for you to begin with, so sign it now.

Don’t sign and the owners will lock the players out again, like they did in 2011.

Fear and intimation is a horrible reason to put your John Hancock on a piece of paper you haven’t read.

That’s why NFL players should vote no, giving themselves the time and manpower needed to check the contract.

NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith eloquently talked about the beauty of Democracy last week when addressing the proposed vote and explaining why it’s a 10-year deal lacking an opt-out.

The bottom line is, there’s an entire season before the current deal expires.

Players need that time to examine how much of what they asked for was granted by these billions, which need the 17th game as a negotiating tool with television networks.

That 17th game is the only bargaining chip the players have over the owners, who are trying to add a few more billions to their coffers.

If the answer to that question is not enough, then vote NO. Not just to demand more.

Vote NO to buy enough time to ensure the deal you think you’re getting is actually what’s being delivered, and to learn if the right people are negotiating on your behalf.