NFL owners "will be updated on recent negotiations with the players when they meet in Chicago" tomorrow, according to Barry Wilner of the AP. The owners "have been told to prepare to stay an extra day because of the complexity of the proposals both sides have discussed in sessions over the last three weeks." There has been "enough pushback from owners familiar with those proposals that progress made recently might not lead to an agreement in the next few weeks." Still, a source said that the "faction of unhappy owners that exists is not yet large enough to derail an agreement." Wilner noted that "could lead to some heavy lobbying in Chicago at the first owners' meeting specifically scheduled to deal with the lockout." One item "of contention probably is the minimum teams can spend on salaries each year and how it is determined, a key for small-market franchises" such as the Bills, Jaguars and Bengals. It is clear that "deadlines are approaching." Training camps "normally would open in about five weeks, and any lengthy delays in striking a deal will endanger them and the preseason." Wilner: "Until now, the owners have appeared unified, from when they opted out to when they locked out. But as negotiations have ramped up, a faction of owners skeptical about the dynamics of a new deal has appeared. That will make next week's owners' meetings critical as July approaches" (AP, 6/17). In N.Y., Bart Hubbuch cited a source as saying that the "raging optimism about a seemingly imminent resolution to the NFL's labor mess has waned dramatically in recent days because of concerns raised by owners of several small-market teams." Enough small-market owners are "concerned about the potential 'salary floor' -- the minimum amount each team must spend on player salaries each year -- and how bonuses will count toward the salary cap in the next collective bargaining agreement that hopes of a settlement by mid-July that would save the entire season are starting to dim" (N.Y. POST, 6/18).
OWNERS NOT SEEING EYE TO EYE: CBSSPORTS.com's Mike Freeman reported Patriots Owner Robert Kraft and Giants President & CEO John Mara "have earned the trust of the players," and as a result are "proving to be the cool heads in a chemically imbalanced owner mix of testosterone, absurdly large egos and billable hours." Sources indicated that Kraft and Mara "have walked that fine line between representing the interests of the owners while earning the trust of the players." If the owners cannot agree on a new CBA, "football could collapse under the weight of its own arrogance." Freeman added, "I think there will actually be few owners who might stand against the deal. The opponents will be the usual suspects: a fractional number of small-market owners like Ralph Wilson, a few extremists like Dan Snyder and the egoists like Jerry Jones. I think the likelihood of a massive outburst against the deal's currently constructed parameters is small" (CBSSPORTS.com, 6/19). In Cincinnati, Joe Reedy noted there is a "faction of owners who believe the talks aren’t addressing the concerns that prompted them to opt out early on the last CBA," and "one of those owners is presumed to be" the Bengals' Mike Brown. He was one of two owners, alongside the Bills' Wilson, who opposed the CBA in '06. Reedy: "Also remember that Brown said the day after the lockout that in the end a deal didn’t get completed because it came down to the money" (CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, 6/19). In K.C., Sam Mellinger wrote the "key part of the negotiations" for small-market teams will be to "keep Jones and others in larger markets true to the NFL's traditional all-for-one and one-for-all revenue system" (K.C. STAR, 6/19).
TIME TO TAKE CONTROL: SI.com's Peter King writes, "I doubt many owners will be shocked by anything they hear Tuesday." Some might not "like how far the league is planning to go in giving players a percentage of the profits," but NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "will tell them it has to happen for there to be a deal." King: "Whatever the nuts and bolts of this CBA become, he has been working with these owners on the tenets of this deal for three years, and he may have some opposition ... but I can't see nine teams' worth of it. For nine owners to rise up and say, Whoa, I'm not buying into this, is unlikely" (SI.com, 6/20). An NFL team owner on Friday said, "There's a lot on the line (next) week. I don’t envy Roger’s position because he has to make a lot of people happy. I think there’s enough common sense out there that we’ll get something done, but there are also some (owners) who still want to fight." YAHOO SPORTS' Jason Cole wrote that "desire to fight may exist," even though two sources said that the players are "willing to give owners upwards of nearly 60 percent of the 'true up' money over the next three to four years." Cole: "Players have come a long way from the simple 50-50 split they offered in March. The problem is that ever since the owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008, there has been a strong subset of them who have pushed to fight the now decertified NFL Players Association for significant rollbacks in the portion of money going to players" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 6/18).
ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS: USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell reports it is "apparent a rookie scale won't be a major snag in reaching a labor deal." Still, Goodell has "described the scale as an unresolved core issue." A source said that a rookie wage scale "could limit contract length for non-quarterback first-round picks to four years while other draftees could sign three-year deals, allowing a faster track to free agency." Jones said, "It won't be the same. We all know that it's a common area of interest between us and the players" (USA TODAY, 6/20). Meanwhile, FOXSPORTS.com's Alex Marvez noted the NFL's "revenue pie has grown so quickly that both sides have spent months trying to secure their share in a new collective bargaining agreement even though the respective slices would have spilled over the plate 16 years ago." Barring the lockout extending into the regular season, the NFL is "projected to generate at least $10 billion in revenue" for '11, compared to $2.14B in '95. The salary cap that year was set at $36.5M, a "figure that skyrocketed to $128 million for the NFL’s last capped season" in '09 (FOXSPORTS.com, 6/18).
BACK TO WORK? CBSSPORTS.com's Clark Judge reported NFL coaches "have been alerted business could resume anywhere from mid- to late July," and two sources said that "there's a feeling that late July is more likely." Judge: "That tells us two things: 1) that management believes a settlement is probable, and 2) that it still acknowledges there is substantial work to be completed before players and owners complete an agreement." One source said that "he and other assistants were notified that one of two scenarios could take place." The first "would involve five days of workouts -- mostly conditioning -- to evaluate players before training camp begins, with the understanding that clubs could sign free agents during that time." The second scenario "involved a looser schedule, with a two-week period prior to training camp devoted to anything from conditioning and strength exercises, OTAs, team meetings and free-agent signings." The source said that after that, "there would be a brief break before training camp begins" (CBSSPORTS.com, 6/17).
LET'S GET POLITICAL: U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in an Op/Ed for the N.Y. TIMES wrote, "Congress can -- and should -- intervene to force a resolution of the dispute. Congress has considerable leverage over the NFL because it grants the league an antitrust exemption without which it could not operate as it currently does. ... To ensure an agreement between the owners and players in time for the 2011 season, Congress should place a special condition on the continuation of the NFL’s antitrust exemption: the owners and players must abide by a settlement procedure known as last-best-offer arbitration" (N.Y. TIMES, 6/18).
