The NFLPA's Exec Council last week voted to not recommend the proposed CBA to the rest of the unionGETTY IMAGES
NFL owners have agreed to meet with the NFLPA at the Combine in Indianapolis tomorrow, but it is "unclear whether that meeting will result in further discussion" about terms of the proposed CBA or whether the owners will tell the union to "take the current one or leave it," according to a source cited by Dan Graziano of ESPN.com. The NFLPA last Friday "held a nearly three-hour conference call with its 32 team player representatives to discuss" the CBA proposal. Just before that call began, the NFLPA's Executive Council "voted 6-5 to not recommend the proposal to the rest of union membership, citing concerns over the NFL's desire to expand the regular season from 16 games to 17." A source said that the union "still planned to hold a vote of its full membership" this week, although they "would prefer the player reps to vote to recommend the deal prior to doing so." Officially, 21 of the 32 player reps "need to vote yes for it to qualify as a recommendation." After tomorrow's meeting with the league, NFLPA player reps "plan to hold the vote they'd hoped to hold" last Friday (ESPN.com, 2/21). PFT’s Mike Florio said, "The executive committee negotiates the deal, and now the executive committee doesn’t like the deal, and now everybody has to figure out what the hell the deal is and where they go from here (“PFT,” NBCSN, 2/24). The MMQB's Albert Breer reports "all 32 player reps and 11 executive committee members are expected" to attend tomorrow's summit with NFL officials, "as are the eight members of the NFL’s Management Council Executive Committee." Breer: "What happens from there will help chart the next year, at least, of pro football" (SI.com, 2/24).
OWNERS' EYE: The MMQB's Breer reports things during the NFL owners' meeting last Thursday to vote through the proposal, things "weren’t as smooth as they might’ve seemed." Some "pushed back on the work rules, citing what their coaches have told them about it affecting the quality of the game." Others "felt like there was no need to give the players more money than they were getting" in the current CBA. Others "still wanted to push for 18 games." Perhaps that is "why the group took the rare measure of voting by secret ballot, which barely ever happens among NFL owners." The proposal, in the end, did "wind up passing, but the vote wasn’t unanimous" (SI.com, 2/24). In DC, Mark Maske noted it is "not clear whether the league and owners are willing to negotiate further or make additional concessions to the players" (WASHINGTON POST, 2/22).
PLAYERS' PERSPECTIVE: The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Andrew Beaton cited a source as saying that the vote among players is expected to be a "close call" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2/22). ESPN.com's Jeremy Fowler reported NFL player leadership is "still majorly divided over the thought of a 17-game season" (ESPN.com, 2/23). ESPN’s Mike Golic Sr. said, "The league wants to get it done and the players know the league wants to get it done, so there’s that fine line of how far do you push." He added, "Do you try to get more out of it, and push and push and push, before the league says, ‘Well, forget it now. We’re done negotiating. This is what it is'" (“Golic & Wingo,” ESPN Radio, 2/24). In N.Y., Pat Leonard wrote NFL players "need to find a voice and a unified message and be sure they’re ready for a fight." The players have a "more than valid argument that this proposal is not in their interest," but last Friday "made it look like they aren’t on the same page themselves" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 2/23). ESPN’s Mike Greenberg said, "You have 1,900 guys with 1,900 different agendas, and that’s the problem. That’s why, among many reasons, why the players really can’t fully win in a battle with the owners because there just isn’t a consensus on what they want (“Get Up,” ESPN, 2/24). In Boston, Ben Volin wrote, "The players also must consider: Is this the best offer they are going to get?" The fact that the owners are "so eager for the players to accept the deal is definitely a red flag" (BOSTON GLOBE, 2/23).
TIMING IS EVERYTHING: PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Florio wrote there are "dynamics that potentially give the players more leverage if/when a work stoppage (lockout or strike) should happen" in '21. Perhaps the owners will, this time around, "lack the collective resolve to shut the sport down." Perhaps the "financial obligations for the owners will be as daunting as they’ll be for the players" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 2/22). In Pittsburgh, Mark Madden wrote, "The oddest thing about the CBA proposal is its timing. Why now?" Madden: "Why would the players take the deal now? With over a year to go before a potential work stoppage, the players have zero leverage. If they wait, they will get more" (TRIBLIVE.com, 2/21). In Houston, Aaron Wilson wrote while the players are "unlikely to ever get" a 50% split of all revenue, this "isn’t a horribly one-sided deal." But the "biggest issue that this CBA fails to account for from the players’ standpoint is not having an out after, say, five years to renegotiate." There also is "little movement toward the big fully guaranteed contracts baseball players have" (HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 2/23).
MORE BREAKDOWN: NBCSPORTS.com's King writes this tentative CBA deal is "relatively better for the 35th man on the roster than the fifth" (NBCSPORTS.com, 2/24). ESPN's Trey Wingo said, "For the NFL to get the things that everyone talks about ... you’re going to have to have about 400 Curt Floods. So many of these guys look at it as a four-year cash grab to get whatever I can get” (“Golic & Wingo,” ESPN Radio, 2/24). In Denver, Ryan O'Halloran wrote under the header, "Analyzing Key Points Of CBA Proposal" (DENVER POST, 2/22). A source discussing the effects of the '20 Presidential election on NFL ratings and the proposed CBA said, "This election is going to be political reality TV. ... We all feel that a (CBA) deal we get a year from now will not be as good for us, or for the players. The money won’t be the same, I don’t think" (NBCSPORTS.com, 2/24).
