It’s fourth-andlong for Rodgers, other CBA foes
INDIANAPOLIS – The 17-game NFL season seemed like a done deal Tuesday.
But if some of the high-profile players who object to it can rally the rank and file to vote no on a proposed collective bargaining agreement (CBA), it may go back to being nothing more than an NFL wish list item.
Sometime in the next couple of weeks, NFL players will vote yes or no on the proposal in front of them. It only takes a simply majority of those who
vote to approve it and there are many reasons to think the numbers are there.
But several well-known players – including Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson, Pittsburgh Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey and Green Bay Packers tackle David Bakhtiari – raised objections publicly Wednesday in hopes of getting their brethren to fight for more.
Then came a public statement from Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers denouncing it.
Months of negotiations between the owners and the NFL Players Association resulted in a proposal which, according to the NFL, features a 17-game regularseason schedule, a three-game preseason schedule, a bigger piece of the revenue pie for the players and a $100,000 increase in minimum salaries.
In addition, rosters would increase from 53 to 55 and game-day actives from 46 to 48. An extra playoff berth would be added in each conference as well.
In a Twitter post, Rodgers, who is the team’s union rep, said his decision was based on many conversations he had with players in the Packers locker room. He said the deal needed more work, calling it an “abbreviated version” of a full proposal.
He seemed to indicate that the owners went into negotiations with the 17th game as a given and that the players’ concerns about the increased workload were not addressed. He pointed to the fact the Packers would have played two more games this past season if the proposed playoff format were in place.
“Although I do see that there are many things in the proposal that improve the lives and care for post, present and future NFL players, there are issues with others,” he wrote. “16 games to me was never something to be negotiated. The owners made it clear that the 17th game is about paying for the ‘added’ benefits and had nothing to do with positive feedback received about any extra risks involved with the added regular season game.”
Talk of the 17-game schedule picked up Wednesday after the 32 NFL union reps – one player per team – voted 1714-1 Tuesday evening to send the proposal to the membership for a vote. If the reps had rejected the proposal, both sides would have gone back to the negotiating table.
Normally, the two sides bargain right up until the end of the existing CBA, which in this case is March 2021. But the owners got serious more than a year before expiration, because they wanted to be in a better position this fall to negotiate expiring network TV contracts.
Those deals pay the bills. The Packers made $274.3 million in national revenue last year, the majority of which came from shared network TV contracts.
Adding a 17th regular-season game means lots more advertising dollars for the networks and a great reason for the NFL to ask them to pay more.
An uncertain labor position would lessen the NFL’s leverage when negotiations begin on new TV deals, mostly because the players must agree to a 17game schedule. Without an agreement, the owners would have difficulty convincing the networks they should pay a higher price to broadcast games.
So, in a new 10-year deal, the NFL owners offered the players a 1%-1.5% increase on the 47% of total revenues they are receiving now under the CBA, along with a lighter practice schedule, the increased roster size, more practice squad positions and the enhanced minimums.
Then they put the squeeze on the players by saying they needed the deal done before the official start of the 2020 league year March 18.
The union’s executive committee, which does the actual bargaining, voted 6-5 against the proposal, but decided anyway to send it to the 32 reps for a vote. The reps asked to meet with the NFL on Tuesday and after getting the league to tweak parts of the proposal, the reps voted in favor of passing it along for a membership vote.
Unless Rodgers and the others can convince the rank and file otherwise, there are plenty of reasons to think it will pass.
The increases in minimums and roster sizes appeal to the economically middle and lower classes of the NFL, who don’t know whether they’ll be on a roster this season or the next. They want to get what they can while they can, which is understandable given the short average career span in the NFL.
They undoubtedly feel a strike or lockout would benefit the highest-paid players more than themselves. And since there are far more of them than there are stars such as Wilson and Rodgers, it very well could pass easily.
There are also increases in pension benefits for current and former players that should appeal to those not making $20 million or more. The players will also receive an additional game check on top of the increase in revenue share, which means a tangible salary bump.
There are also increases in performance-based pay, raises for practice squad players, performance escalators for draft picks and higher salary minimums for restricted free agents.
All those things are appealing to the rank and file.
Critics of the union – and many of them are agents who negotiate deals for the players – feel much of the proposal is window dressing. They believe weak leadership from executive director DeMaurice Smith has resulted in the players giving up demands of at least a 50%
share of the revenue pie, like what major league baseball and NBA players receive.
Many of the players don’t know that they received more than 50% of the revenues before the owners locked them out in 2011 and won major concessions in the 10-year CBA now in place. Those opposed to the proposal would have to convince the others that voting no would mean more money would trickle down to them.
The fact the owners are asking for another 10-year deal – which means for most players, whatever they agree to now will be in place the entirety of their career – could be a rallying point for the opposition.
Unlike the previous negotiation, which came on the heels of the Great Recession, the players have some leverage. The owners need the 17-game schedule to sell to the networks and if the players were to reject the proposal, the two sides would need to return to the bargaining table.
For all the threats the owners might make now, experienced negotiators know that deadlines cause the two sides to reconsider their positions. If the 17game schedule were not approved a month before negotiations with the networks began, the owners might be willing to up the ante.
But don’t expect that to happen. As one agent for high-profile players said, there doesn’t seem to be a stomach for a strike or lockout that could occur next season if the proposal is rejected.
“You get the best deal if you’re able to stop the industry,” he said. “Since they’ve taken a position that they don’t want to do that, it’s likely that they won’t.”
The veteran players have urged their fellow union members to consider the big picture. Some veterans want the union to demand lifetime health insurance as baseball offers and others want guaranteed salaries like baseball and basketball both offer.
But those things are not in the proposal.
Nearly 11 months of negotiations went into the proposal and if the union thought it was horrible, they wouldn’t have even considered a vote on it. So, there are certainly top officials who think the owners negotiated in good faith and this is the best they could do.
Rodgers and the others have to convince the players there is more out there.
“The value of our players and the strength of the NFLPA can only be realized if we ourselves know and believe in our worth,” Rodgers wrote. “I respect the democratic nature of this process and have been and will continue to talk with my teammates on the Packers and my colleagues across the league.”