NFL owners and players could each vote today on a new 10-year labor pact and to end the antitrust litigation against the league, though significant hurdles remained as of this morning. The NFL does not want to approve separate deals to settle the Brady v NFL antitrust lawsuit in addition to a labor deal. The league wants those two matters, plus other outstanding litigation, to be wrapped into one package. The NFLPA yesterday sent a settlement agreement to the Brady plaintiffs for conditional approval, but did not vote on the CBA, as many had expected them to do. "No global settlement, no CBA. No CBA, the lockout continues,” a source close to the talks said. NFL Exec VP/Labor & General Counsel Jeff Pash took a decidedly more upbeat tone in speaking to reporters early yesterday evening outside the Atlanta hotel where the owners are planning to vote today. He did not rule out the owners voting first, something that was not expected to occur because the league has wanted assurances the NFLPA will reform as a union before voting. Some within in the league believe if it comes to it, voting first might pressure the players into accepting a deal. There were other unresolved issues as of this morning, including where players could file worker compensation claims, and a damages amount from the lockout fees case a federal judge found in favor of the NFLPA. However, a key source said this morning that the $320M demand from the players stemming from unpaid benefits in ‘10 that were not required under the now expired labor deal was no longer an issue. Another source reasoned the players might be trying to simply wait to see if the league bends on certain issues at the last moment. It is possible that the votes could be pushed into later today or even tomorrow. But Pash warned the time would soon come to a close when the entire preseason could be salvaged. “We’ll see. It’s getting tight. It’s getting pretty tight. It would be pretty challenging” (Daniel Kaplan, SportsBusiness Journal).
PIVOTAL DAY: In N.Y., Judy Battista notes the "delay in a final vote by players on the settlement caused concern privately among league officials." A source said that one factor in the delay is that "because many of the details of the negotiations were held so close to the vest for so long, some player representatives were learning of them for the first time on Wednesday and had questions they wanted addressed." It is "unlikely that the entire deal is in jeopardy over these few final issues ... but the delay over ancillary issues sets up Thursday as a day of reckoning." Pash, the "lead negotiator for this deal," said that he "remained cautiously optimistic that a deal could be completed and ratified by both sides" today. Battista writes the owners voting first and approving the deal "would put immense public pressure on players to get on board so football can resume operations" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/21). ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reports players did not vote on the labor deal yesterday because the player reps were going through it “line-by-line." Mortensen: "For a lot of them it was just a lot of digesting and trying to comprehend what they were reading.” He adds, "There was even discussion about inserting an opt-out clause after seven years in case the deal wasn’t working.” Another issue is that some players "actually didn’t want to reconstitute as a union" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 7/21). CBSSPORTS.com's Clark Judge wrote the "reality is that owners don't really know where" today will take them, though "most still seem confident they close the deal" (CBSSPORTS.com, 7/20).
SETTLING LAWSUITS AN ISSUE: NFL.com's Breer, La Canfora & Wyche cite sources as saying that the player reps sent the settlement agreement to the 10 Brady v NFL plaintiffs "instead of simply approving" the draft of the CBA that "lawyers and staff had been working on for the last month." The CBA proposal will go to the plaintiffs "only if the league meets certain conditions in settling that piece of legislation, and also the TV rights fees case, in which players accused owners of setting up a $4 billion lockout-insurance fund." Sources said that the NFLPA Exec Committee "will not recommend that player reps vote on any deal until both lawsuits are resolved ... and it's unknown when that will be." Falcons OT Tyson Clabo yesterday said, "We still have a lot of work to do" (NFL.com, 7/21). Meanwhile, in DC, Mark Maske reports the player reps yesterday gave a "conditional recommendation for approval by all the players if the remaining issues are worked out." But their "actions during their meeting underscored the need for the two sides to resolve the players' antitrust lawsuit against the owners." NFLPA President Kevin Mawae said, "We're not tied to a timeline of July 21. Our timeline is that which gets us the deal that is the best deal for our players" (WASHINGTON POST, 7/21). On Long Island, Bob Glauber writes player reps "didn't seem concerned about public backlash; they were more concerned with working out the remaining issues" (NEWSDAY, 7/21).
NEW CBA DETAILS: ESPN.com's Sal Paolantonio cites an NFL source as saying that a finalized CBA would "include three additional provisions that were agreed upon by both sides." Among them is an "enhanced injury protection benefit" that would pay players "up to $1 million for the first year after the injury and up to $500,000 in the second year," in addition to a player's salary in the season he is injured. Players also would "get to stay in the league-sponsored player medical plan for life, if they so choose." There also would be an "annual increase in minimum salaries for players -- 10 percent increase for rookies, 12 percent for second-year players -- and the increases will continue throughout the life of the proposed 10-year CBA" (ESPN.com, 7/21).
NFL Network's Albert Breer reports the deal is going to have “some things in there that everyone’s not going to like.” There is an understanding among the owners “that everyone isn’t going to like this deal to reach a fair deal,” and the players "got pretty heated and passionate as well." Breer: "Some of that even continued into today with the lawyers at the NFLPA offices" (“NFL Total Access,” NFL Network, 7/21). In N.Y., Hank Gola reports the "small-market Bengals and Bills appeared to be the only teams still taking a hard line on the lockout" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 7/21). In Charlotte, Tom Sorensen cites sources as saying that Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson "has fought for the integrity of small-market teams such as his" (CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, 7/21). However, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "believes he has the 75% vote … to get this ratified” ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 7/21).
 |
Goodell (c) has fielded much of the players'
wrath toward ownership during lockout |
LASTING LEGACIES: In N.Y., Gary Myers wonders if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell can "restore his image with players." Myers writes, "Even though Goodell has been tough on the law-and-order stuff with the players, I do think they respected him." But Goodell "symbolized the owners in this labor dispute and has a lot of work to do to again feel welcome in locker rooms." Myers: "If he suspends players for violating the personal-conduct policy during the lockout, he should be prepared for his image among players to be damaged further." Meanwhile, it appeared NFLPA Exec Dir DeMaurice Smith initally "was running for office every time he spoke." But Smith "held his own against one of the most powerful business entities in the country," and he was "able to keep almost all of his 1,900-member constituency from jumping ship" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 7/21). Meanwhile, SPORTING NEWS' David Steele wonders how the owners will "come off looking" should they "blink" when deciding to approve the CBA. Steele: "If they don't have the stomach to end it now, after the big tease of the past week of 'the-lockout-is-almost-over' talk, they could only do themselves and their reputations harm. They'd look as greedy and self-centered as they did when they shut the league down in the first place -- only more so" (SPORTING NEWS TODAY, 7/21).
IS THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE? USA TODAY's Paul Daugherty writes during the lockout "one word kept circling my head like the Goodyear blimp: contempt." Daugherty: "Contempt for the owners, rich socialists, some of whom were born into a system that guarantees their wealth, regardless of their competence. Contempt for the players, who celebrate their great, good fortune by getting arrested. Contempt for a culture that has been OK with paying $50 million guaranteed to a rookie quarterback as school teachers face layoffs. Did the league and its employees have any idea just how out of touch they all were?" (USA TODAY, 7/21). Columnist Kevin Blackistone said once the NFL CBA is signed, the “owners are going to get a little bit more money. The players are going to get a little bit more money and not have to play that 18-game schedule, and what are the fans going to get? Same prices for tickets, same prices for parking, same prices for concessions." Blackistone: "Let’s give the fans a little something too. Give them a break on something” (“Around The Horn,” ESPN, 7/20).
SETTING A DATE: Indianapolis Super Bowl Host Committee Chair Mark Miles yesterday said that he "plans to inform local hoteliers that they can begin booking customers for the weekend of Feb. 12 soon after" a new CBA is agreed to. The Super Bowl is scheduled for Feb. 5, but NFL officials "had asked the city to keep two weekends open during the bid process in case the date had to be moved." Miles: "For them (hoteliers) to sit on two weekends, knowing that only one would be used, was an issue. So the sooner it's clear they can sell the second weekend, the better." Miles added the labor issue "has never been about whether there would be a Super Bowl in February, but when." Miles: "We've been reassured recently by the NFL that if there is a resolution soon, as most expect, we will be able to confirm Feb. 5 as the date" (AP, 7/20).
