YoHoChecko
04-10-2007, 11:34 PM
Missed Opportunities:
What the 2007 Offseason has Revealed About the Failings of 2006
by
Max Gross
Last month, Gene Upshaw was unanimously re-elected as the head of the NFL Players’ Association. Upshaw has been the union’s executive director since 1983 and with last year’s collective bargaining agreement, he has ensured 20 consecutive years of labor peace between the owners and the NFLPA. He stood strong last year and increased the percentage of revenue that is applied to the players’ salary cap, making sure that the windfall from a recent television deal was felt by the players, not just the owners. In that stand, he helped push the league toward the expansion of the revenue-sharing agreement that has been key to the league’s growth, development and success in markets both large and small. Indeed, in 2006 Upshaw made just the type of deal that gets union chiefs unanimously re-elected—but should it?
A glance around the league right now finds two great players that are protesting the franchise tag and demanding trades, teams that have overspent themselves into a world of future cap trouble (http://www.pigskinheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56650) in free agency, retired players who have a suit pending against the league, and a growing sentiment from insiders that tension between players and management will reach new highs as players seek to align their current deals with the new standard set in free agency. Meanwhile, teams are on track to enter the season with record highs in unspent cap dollars. It seems as though after all that squabbling over adding a few percentage points of revenue to the salary cap, the players and the league could have been better off directing that money and effort elsewhere. Instead, unspent cap dollars and inflated contracts for mediocre players simply stand to represent the opportunities missed.
How does one define “labor peace?” Think about it. Is it simply the existence of an agreement between the two sides? Is it securing as much money as possible for players while keeping the league’s owners financially secure? Or is it an agreement that benefits both sides, minimizes tensions and serves their best interests long-term, without being limited to financial greed?
Gene Upshaw insisted that the players’ cap should be raised to no less than 60 percent of the league’s shared revenues, which are approximately $6 billion dollars annually, before finally settling at 59.5 percent. Suppose the union decided to dedicate themselves to making amends to the retired players, who were compensated far less as they built the foundation for the league’s current success. One half of one percent would have provided nearly $30 million toward that effort each year—easily enough to provide more care for the deteriorating bodies and/or increase the pension plans for current players down the road.
The union also should have made a firmer stance against the franchise tag. With the amount of guaranteed money given out in free agency now out-pacing the current franchise tag guarantees, consternation is certain to grow over the issue. If it is so upsetting for the players, why hasn’t the union taken a stand against these tags? The only answer can be that the union prioritized massive salary increases over moderate increases coupled with a more player-friendly system. To convince the owners to let go of the tags, sacrifice another percentage of revenue toward the salary cap and make a stand on the issue as steadfast as the revenue percentage was last year.
Then comes the difficult issue of how to appease players that badly outplay their contracts—especially those who are stuck under their rookie deals which were negotiated with the teams having all leverage. The simple solution would be to enact a jump in the league’s existing performance-based pay program. This program uses a formula to compensate players whose playing time and production exceed their level of pay and has been widely considered a success by players and the league. Such payouts, coming after each season’s completion, often serve to appease restless players in search of an extension or a raise, with some payouts now exceeding $300,000. Why not devote another percent and a half to such a program, infusing it with $90 million annually?
By sacrificing a three percent increase to the salary cap, equating to approximately $100,000 per league player and in essence maintaining the status quo from the previous collective bargaining agreement, the union possibly could have improved the care of its retirees, done away with the most divisive tool management uses against the players and aided players stuck in bad contracts. Additionally, the issues of financial protection in the event of injury, the problem with severe head injuries and the unyielding inflation of rookie salaries among the draft’s top picks were not decisively addressed by the union, despite the obvious benefit to the majority of the players represented and the mutual benefits for the teams and owners.
So when Gene Upshaw was unanimously re-elected to head the NFLPA, it was a case of follow the leader. After watching Upshaw pass up several opportunities to improve the quality of life for his players and improve the structure that binds them, the voting bloc of players missed the opportunity to send Upshaw a message that “labor peace” and inflated salaries alone are not the best ways to improve their lot.
What the 2007 Offseason has Revealed About the Failings of 2006
by
Max Gross
Last month, Gene Upshaw was unanimously re-elected as the head of the NFL Players’ Association. Upshaw has been the union’s executive director since 1983 and with last year’s collective bargaining agreement, he has ensured 20 consecutive years of labor peace between the owners and the NFLPA. He stood strong last year and increased the percentage of revenue that is applied to the players’ salary cap, making sure that the windfall from a recent television deal was felt by the players, not just the owners. In that stand, he helped push the league toward the expansion of the revenue-sharing agreement that has been key to the league’s growth, development and success in markets both large and small. Indeed, in 2006 Upshaw made just the type of deal that gets union chiefs unanimously re-elected—but should it?
A glance around the league right now finds two great players that are protesting the franchise tag and demanding trades, teams that have overspent themselves into a world of future cap trouble (http://www.pigskinheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56650) in free agency, retired players who have a suit pending against the league, and a growing sentiment from insiders that tension between players and management will reach new highs as players seek to align their current deals with the new standard set in free agency. Meanwhile, teams are on track to enter the season with record highs in unspent cap dollars. It seems as though after all that squabbling over adding a few percentage points of revenue to the salary cap, the players and the league could have been better off directing that money and effort elsewhere. Instead, unspent cap dollars and inflated contracts for mediocre players simply stand to represent the opportunities missed.
How does one define “labor peace?” Think about it. Is it simply the existence of an agreement between the two sides? Is it securing as much money as possible for players while keeping the league’s owners financially secure? Or is it an agreement that benefits both sides, minimizes tensions and serves their best interests long-term, without being limited to financial greed?
Gene Upshaw insisted that the players’ cap should be raised to no less than 60 percent of the league’s shared revenues, which are approximately $6 billion dollars annually, before finally settling at 59.5 percent. Suppose the union decided to dedicate themselves to making amends to the retired players, who were compensated far less as they built the foundation for the league’s current success. One half of one percent would have provided nearly $30 million toward that effort each year—easily enough to provide more care for the deteriorating bodies and/or increase the pension plans for current players down the road.
The union also should have made a firmer stance against the franchise tag. With the amount of guaranteed money given out in free agency now out-pacing the current franchise tag guarantees, consternation is certain to grow over the issue. If it is so upsetting for the players, why hasn’t the union taken a stand against these tags? The only answer can be that the union prioritized massive salary increases over moderate increases coupled with a more player-friendly system. To convince the owners to let go of the tags, sacrifice another percentage of revenue toward the salary cap and make a stand on the issue as steadfast as the revenue percentage was last year.
Then comes the difficult issue of how to appease players that badly outplay their contracts—especially those who are stuck under their rookie deals which were negotiated with the teams having all leverage. The simple solution would be to enact a jump in the league’s existing performance-based pay program. This program uses a formula to compensate players whose playing time and production exceed their level of pay and has been widely considered a success by players and the league. Such payouts, coming after each season’s completion, often serve to appease restless players in search of an extension or a raise, with some payouts now exceeding $300,000. Why not devote another percent and a half to such a program, infusing it with $90 million annually?
By sacrificing a three percent increase to the salary cap, equating to approximately $100,000 per league player and in essence maintaining the status quo from the previous collective bargaining agreement, the union possibly could have improved the care of its retirees, done away with the most divisive tool management uses against the players and aided players stuck in bad contracts. Additionally, the issues of financial protection in the event of injury, the problem with severe head injuries and the unyielding inflation of rookie salaries among the draft’s top picks were not decisively addressed by the union, despite the obvious benefit to the majority of the players represented and the mutual benefits for the teams and owners.
So when Gene Upshaw was unanimously re-elected to head the NFLPA, it was a case of follow the leader. After watching Upshaw pass up several opportunities to improve the quality of life for his players and improve the structure that binds them, the voting bloc of players missed the opportunity to send Upshaw a message that “labor peace” and inflated salaries alone are not the best ways to improve their lot.