CBA update

[Darth Bobo]

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/67434

NFL’s Pash: ‘We are going to have a deal’

League says it is open to options

The NFL is willing to consider alternatives to the core economic proposal it made to the players’ union, but wants the pace of talks to quicken, the league’s top internal negotiator, Jeff Pash, said.

With less than 100 days remaining until the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement March 3, the NFL is publicly suggesting for the first time that it is not wed to its core demand of holding back 18 percent more in league revenue from the players in order to pay for costs like stadiums, NFL Network and team stores. The league made that proposal in December 2009, and while it has been mischaracterized as an 18 percent pay cut, it would have the effect of decreasing player pay until revenue accelerated.

The NFLPA said it did not have enough time to immediately respond to Pash’s comments.

The league remains firm, Pash said, that any proposal must address the balance between the risks and rewards of generating revenue. Pash responded to questions from SportsBusiness Journal staff writer Daniel Kaplan last Wednesday, and the NFL executive’s answers are excerpted below.

Q: The NFLPA executive director last week was quoted in this magazine expressing gloominess about the state of the labor talks. What’s your attitude?

PASH: Characterizing on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour basis, as though you are doing a weather forecast or a weather report doesn’t accomplish anything.

Q: Is that what you feel the union has been doing?

PASH: I don’t worry about that. It is of no consequence, because I know we are going to have a deal; I know we are going to have an agreement.

In identifying key owners in the negotiations, Pash mentioned Packers President Mark Murphy (bottom) and Giants co-owner John Mara (center) as having attended “basically all of meetings.” He also referred to Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, one of the chairmen of the labor committee.

Q: By March 3?

PASH: Well, there is no reason we can’t have a deal by March 3. … What we need is to have sustained engagement. We need to be meeting regularly, we need to leave meetings not worried about how we are going to characterize meetings, whether we are gloomy, whether we’re upbeat, whether we are excited, whether we are exhausted. We need to get past that. … But it has got to be a shared commitment. One side cannot do it alone.

Q: You seem to be saying it’s their fault there have not been enough meetings.

PASH: I am not, I am not blaming people. I am saying you asked the question “Do I have any reason to think we can have an agreement by March 3?” and I am saying there is no reason we can’t have an agreement by March 3.

Q: Do you have a meeting scheduled?

PASH: We just finished two days of meetings. And so we don’t have specific dates on the calendar, but we will probably meet with them next week and hopefully continue meeting with them.

Q: Was there any progress made this week?

PASH: Again, again, I am not going to characterize the discussions, whether there was progress.

Q: The union has asked for the audited financial books of NFL teams, which the league rejects. Has the union made this an issue in the negotiations?

PASH: Not really with us. … We have said all along we are prepared to make disclosures that document and justify what our bargaining proposals are. I think you don’t have to look any further than the basketball negotiations, where they did produce, as I understand it, all of their financial statements, that document losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and the union’s response was quote, it’s baloney, close quote.

Q: This is not something that the NFLPA brings up in negotiations?

PASH: We are not hearing, “If you don’t do this, we will not sign an agreement.”

Q: Your core proposal remains the 18 percent cost credit?

PASH: Our proposal that we made was an 18 percent cost credit. Now what we have said to the union is that we are prepared to look at alternatives that would address the issues our owners have raised and the issues they have identified to us as being important in a new agreement. If the union has an alternative that it would like to propose we will look at it, we would analyze it. We are not so wed to a single approach or to a single proposal we would say we are not prepared to consider anything else. The question to us is … how does it address what is the central issue, which is having a relationship between financial risk and rewards that will encourage growth.

Q: A cost credit does not necessarily always mean revenues rise. Can you guarantee that if the union accedes to a credit?

PASH: Probably the most obvious area for cost credits we have talked about is stadium construction. If the stadiums don’t get built you are not giving us any credit. On the other hand once the stadiums are built they are significant drivers of revenues. … We are not asking them to buy a pig in a poke here.

Q: Can an 18-game season solve the issues by creating more revenue?

PASH: The deal realistically is an easier one to make in the context of 18 games.

Q: There was a story in the WSJ last month that quoted league officials saying the NFL would lose $1 billion by next season if a deal is not done, and so the union needed to get a good deal done now. Is that fair to the union, because it was the owners who opted out of the CBA a year early?

PASH: Well, first of all I don’t think anyone is putting any onus on the union. It is our loss too. If there are revenue losses, we are going to experience them too.

Q: Was the $1 billion figure a loose estimate, a hard figure?

PASH: I would say it was not a loose estimate and not a hard figure, but it represented a realistic and documentable estimate of what would be lost if we didn’t start until sometime in September.

Q: Who are the key owners at the negotiating table?

PASH: [New York Giants co-owner] John Mara and [Green Bay Packers President] Mark Murphy have attended — I would say — basically all the meetings, and they are both members of our [labor committee]. Jerry Richardson, as one of our two chairmen of the committee, has attended some meetings.

Q: One often hears the real issue is revenue sharing among the teams. How do you respond?

PASH: First of all, we have more revenue sharing in our league than any other league. Eighty percent of our revenue. … I frankly think that it is a misconception that the issue is between the high- and low-revenue teams. In the 30 years I have been associated with the National Football League, I have never seen our owners more unified.

[Anybodyhome]

Nice copy, good info. The owners are obviously starting to campaign by putting the ball into the NFLPA's court by saying they are not opposed to hearing any proposals by the union.

So far, the union has presented nothing, they have counter-proposed nothing and, for the most part, aren't even willing to discuss the meetings even took place.

[Kurb]

Not entirely accurate.

Players haven't had anything to counter offer.

Players say the owners haven't shown them anything to deal about.

[chknwing]

good post, wrong forum. Neds to be NFL Central

[Kurb]

Needs to be here.

CBA will affect out offseason more than any other team.

[CatMan72]

Players will suffer from a lockout, but not to the degree the owners will... and it sounds like they are getting cold feet.

Interesting point about showing the NFLPA the books, but an independant auditing firm could resolve whether or not they are "baloney".

I don't care who is right and who is wrong, they are both wrong because they are both making more money in a month then I will make in a lifetime, so figure it out, I just wanna see football next year (especially after this year). With the current state of the economy and the threat of a struggling city like Charlotte losing 160 million as the result of a lockout, I would support congress stepping in on this if these greedy bastards can't get something worked out.

[davos]

Players will suffer from a lockout, but not to the degree the owners will... and it sounds like they are getting cold feet.

Interesting point about showing the NFLPA the books, but an independant auditing firm could resolve whether or not they are "baloney".

I don't care who is right and who is wrong, they are both wrong because they are both making more money in a month then I will make in a lifetime, so figure it out, I just wanna see football next year (especially after this year). With the current state of the economy and the threat of a struggling city like Charlotte losing 160 million as the result of a lockout, I would support congress stepping in on this if these greedy bastards can't get something worked out.

I would be more satisfied with the two parties resolving the agreement without the congress. That would only make matters worse. I mean we're talking about the US Congress.

I just can't see them not working something out. No one in the end will honestly want to go through an entire year without the NFL. Its the country's main, most epic sport.

[Zod]

Sounds like the owners know what a lockout will do to them long term. I am optimistic for the first time that a deal will be done.

[Darth Bobo]

When the NFLPA began distributing documents to the players of various teams across the league which authorized the conditional decertification of the union in case of a lockout, they showed their true colors. The union is desperate. The union is not even asking for anything new, they only want to continue the previous CBA.

If this were a poker game, then the NFLPA's action would be akin to upping the ante and hoping that the stakes are so high that the NFL would fold before calling the bluff. Instead, the owners are not issuing anything of substance, and are simply stating that their demands are on the table (they are) and that the NFLPA has yet to counter them substantively, which seems to be the case. The ball is in the court of the NFLPA, and since they have not responded, we must assume that the NFLPA believes that time is on their side.

Why would the NFLPA believe that time is on their side?

I can only speculate to this, but I do think that PASH's last comment regarding the unanimity of the owners is a dubious statement, and certainly time dependent. The circumstances each owner finds himself matter a lot.

Owners disagree with each other on a number of issues as we saw last year at the owners podium with Zygi Wilf(sp?)

Jerry Jones the owner of "America's team" owes enormous amounts of money for his new stadium, so he is on the hot seat. If worse comes to worst, he has no choice but to side with the union.

And like Jones with "America's Team", the Rooney's Steelers are also courting a national audience. These owners can show beyond a doubt that their attire/memorabilia sales contribute profits across the league. Will sales decline in a lockout?

Some teams like the Jets and the Redskins have personnel issues to consider which are unique to their uncapped spending frenzy. These teams would be well over the salary cap as it used to exist, so with a cap return they lose their UFA's or the cap has to return as a larger number. However, the salary cap cannot increase without adversely affecting each franchise's profit margin. Will the Jets/Skins owners accept a smaller salary cap knowing they are taking roster cuts simply to help the Browns and Jaguars adjust to smaller relative ticket sales(which are not included in NFL profit sharing)?

What about Richardson, who personally sacrificed Panthers that he respected (and even his own sons) for the greater good of forcing the NFLPA to capitulate to changes that he felt will make the sport better. Will Richardson be sympathetic to an owner who once supported his cause, but after time jumps at the first opportunity to continue business as usual? I'd say that Richrdson is as wedded as they come, despite the illustration PASH made.

[Happy Panther]

So far, the union has presented nothing, they have counter-proposed nothing and, for the most part, aren't even willing to discuss the meetings even took place.

They have said "renew the current deal and let's play ball!"

[beckersteen]

Sounds like the owners know what a lockout will do to them long term. I am optimistic for the first time that a deal will be done.

It's relieving.

[CosmoGirl]

Actually, the NFLPA brought a counter-proposal a couple of weeks ago. If 18 games, the players want 2 in-season bye weeks, voluntary offseason workouts reduced to 20 days (four days a week, four hour max per day), significantly reduced contact between players during training camp, expanded rosters to 56 or 57, increased pre-rated salaries for players under contract, and reduction of the number of games needed to become vested for post-career healthcare and pension benefits.

Edit: that was a counter-proposal to the 18-game season, not the CBA

[Anybodyhome]

Not entirely accurate.

Players haven't had anything to counter offer.

Players say the owners haven't shown them anything to deal about.

Why do people continue to have this misconception? The owners made their intentions known when they opted out of the CBA. Why do people continue to believe the players know nothing of what the owners want when it's all over the news everyday?

This from April 2009 even describes what the owners want...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d80f6991d/article/commissioner-owners-preparing-for-crucial-cba-discussions

This is the press release when the NFL made their initial proposal to the NFLPA in November 2009

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/134723

All of this is over a year old, yet some people still believe the NFL hasn't disclosed anything to the NFLPA, which just plain makes no sense.

[tarheelpride]

Wasn't some teams de-certifying the unions to prevent a lockout? I haven't heard anything about it since the summer