progress on new CBA?

NFL owners to meet Thursday to discuss CBA talks

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001102482/article/nfl-owners-to-meet-thursday-to-discuss-cba-talks?campaign=Twitter_atn

NFL owners will meet in New York on Thursday to discuss the status of labor negotiations with the NFL Players Association, NFL Network’s Michael Silver reported Wednesday. The players will discuss the owners’ proposal via conference call on Friday, NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero added.

If all goes well during the next 48 hours or so, Silver added, a new collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFLPA could be ratified before the start of the new league year on March 18.

The new deal, however, would be predicated on implementing a 17-game regular season that would launch between 2021 and 2023, Silver reported.

Adding a game to the regular-season schedule has been a point of contention between the sides. Some players — including 49ers receiver Emmanuel Sanders, who played 17 regular-season games this year because of a midseason trade — have already spoken out strongly against it.

The central issue throughout negotiations has been the revenue split, and players are expected to receive an uptick from the 47 percent of total revenue they are guaranteed under the current CBA, which was approved in 2011, Pelissero and NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported in January. The union has long hoped to achieve that increase without adding games, but the league has pushed all along for a lever that would allow them to add games as part of the next TV deal.

The CBA, if agreed to in the next month, could go into effect in time for the new league year, potentially altering the salary cap and state of free agency, among other things.

The league, the NFLPA executive committee and player representatives were scheduled to meet Thursday in Washington, D.C., as Rapoport and NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo reported last week.

The current CBA between the NFL and the NFLPA expires following the 2020 season.

More playoff teams expected under new NFL CBA, sources say

Adam Schefter

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28739375/more-playoff-teams-expected-new-nfl-cba-sources-say

If and when a new collective bargaining agreement is finalized — and there is now mounting optimism it could be done sometime in the next week — it is expected to include a transformational change to the NFL’s playoff structure as it is currently constituted for next season, league sources told ESPN.

Under the current CBA proposal that NFL owners are pushing for, the playoff field would be expanded to seven teams from each conference, while the regular season would be increased to 17 games per team and the preseason shortened to three games per team, sources said.

As part of the proposed playoff format, only one team from each conference would receive a first-round bye as opposed to the two that currently do, league sources said. That would mean a revised postseason schedule that includes six games on wild-card weekend, with three on Saturday and three on Sunday.

The changes to the NFL’s playoff format would take effect for the 2020 season, assuming the new CBA is ratified beforehand. Had the proposed format been in place this past season, the Los Angeles Rams and Pittsburgh Steelers would have been the next teams included in the expanded playoff field.

“That’s been agreed to for a long time,” one source familiar with the CBA talks said about the NFL’s new playoff structure. “There wasn’t a lot of disagreement to that issue.”

Additionally, the players on the teams that earn a first-round bye will receive postseason pay for that weekend. That was not the case under the current CBA, which has always rankled some players.

Now the sides are trying to work through the final issues, including getting the players to sign off on a 17-game regular season. That has yet to be agreed to, and would not take effect until 2021 at the earliest.

“The new CBA’s not done, there’s no term sheet yet, there still are issues being negotiated, but I’d be very surprised if there’s not a new CBA for the new league year,” the source said.

Adam Schefter@AdamSchefter
More on the transformational CBA proposal now on the table, per sources: As part of the new deal, players go from 47% share under current deal to 48% share at 16 games, and then to 48.5% share if they go to 17 games, shifting $5 billion of revenue to players’ side.

Geoff Schwartz@geoffschwartz
Players need more.

tim rominger@timrominger
So players are now making 40+million a year. That is more than most teams profit each year. So if you own a bussiness and took all the risk wouldnt you want to be the highest paid in that bussiness.

Geoff Schwartz@geoffschwartz
Yes the poor owners make no profits. Wtf are you talking about.

Andrew Brandt@AndrewBrandt
The NFL spinning this potential CBA in the media so players feel like they should take it is something to see. Strategic public relations, they hope. We’ll see if it works.

Haven’t seen/heard a word about new NFL CBA addressing deficiencies in team minimum spending threshold, currently too light (89%) and too spread out (4 year inspections). Would hope/expect that is improving.#CBA

NFL CBA proposal re marijuana testing: (1) testing window goes from four months to two weeks at start of training camp; (2) reduces number of players tested; (3) reduces penalties for positive tests; (4) raises nanogram threshold for positive test from 35 to 150 (WADA threshold).

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
The proposed CBA also reduces penalties for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. So no more getting banned strictly for smoking weed.

Darren Rovell@darrenrovell
I’ve been covering sports labor for 20 years. This deal the NFL owners are putting forth might be the worst deal with the exception of the deal the NHL players accepted in 2005 after a year off. There’s no way the NFLPA says yes to this.

Joel Corry@corryjoel
Each team must spend 89% of the league wide salary cap in cash over the 4 year period of 2017 through 2020. A 4 year period is too long & the % should be higher. Players should be pushing to change these things in the new CBA. I’m expecting status quo.

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
One interesting nugget from the proposed CBA: The NFL’s answer to the NBA’s mid-level exception, with an extra $1.25 million excluded from salary cap for up to 2 players with 4+ years experience. Minimum salaries also up across the board.

Albert Breer@AlbertBreer
Among the training camp changes in proposed deal …

• 2.5-hour limit on padded/full speed practices
• Limit time at facility during given workday
• Limit of 16 days in pads
• 3-day weekend at end of camp if 17 games is in
• 2 days off first week, one day every 7 thereafter

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
How would players be compensated for a 17th game if they signed contracts based on a 16-game schedule? Basically, under proposed CBA, they’d get an extra game check, but it’d be capped at $250,000, per sources. So the highest-paid players would play for less than usual.

𝒥𝒾𝓂 𝐸𝓋𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓉@Jim_Everett
lol…That’s a deal breaker. If a player has a $16m a year (16 games) contract which is paid at $1M per game…now management suggests to puts a cap at $250K for game 17? Not happening. Fyi, $250k per game equates to a $4M annual 16 game contact. Ain’t happening folks.

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
The extra offensive lineman rule under the proposed CBA would be similar to the old No. 3 QB rule, per source — basically, a reserve OL could be put into the game if another goes down and can’t return. Lets players come out if they need to without, say, forcing a TE to play OL.

The ball is now in the NFLPA's court; what happens if they punt? Here's how the next year could play out https://t.co/CbwnyWntWs

— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) February 21, 2020

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
The NFLPA executive committee voted 6-5 NOT to recommend the current CBA proposal, source said. That is simply a recommendation, though. It now goes to the 32-man board of representatives.

The NFLPA constitution says the board of representatives must approve the proposed CBA by a 2/3 majority (22 votes), and the full membership must approve by a simple majority. So, even if the full membership votes yes, my understanding is the board still must approve as well.

Darren Rovell@darrenrovell
Hearing NFL players are being told that there’s not much negotiation here. That this is the deal the owners are presenting and if they don’t take it, it’s strike/lockout next year. Billionaires are in a better position than millionaires. Do the players fold?

From @NFLTotalAccess: A heated conference call today with NFLPA leadership reinforced the fundamental opposition many feel to the 17-game schedule. @nflnetwork pic.twitter.com/2mK6PlmcUp

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) February 22, 2020

Dan Graziano@DanGrazianoESPN
Players had tried to eliminate the NFL’s “funding rule” in this deal. The proposal doesn’t do that, but it does weaken the rule somewhat.

The rule, which dates back to the early days of the league when there was some doubt about teams making payroll, requires all teams to hold in escrow any amount of guaranteed money over $2 million in a player contract.

For example: If you get a $50 million contract with $25 million guaranteed, the team has to hold $23 million in escrow, ostensibly so you can be certain it will pay you.

The new CBA would raise the funding rule threshold to $15 million in the first year of the deal and $17 million in 2029, the final year of the deal. So in that earlier example, in 2020, the team would only have to hold $10 million of the $25 million guarantee in escrow.

It wasn’t designed to help players, but to ensure that teams stayed afloat in the league’s early days. No longer a concern, obviously.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-players-17-game-schedule-richard-sherman/zx9f0zsmpqav1eow8kun3krz6

The NFL’s motivation behind its push for a 17-game schedule is obvious, especially considering nobody (not even the fans) is asking for regular-season expansion. If the league can tout 17 games as opposed to 16 games in its upcoming negotiations with potential broadcast rights holders, it can and will charge more for those rights.

Yes, the players would earn a game check for that 17th regular-season contest, but the terms of the proposed CBA reportedly would limit that check to $250,000 per player, a laughable deal to the many players who make more per game. Yet, according to the sentiments expressed by Richard Sherman almost a month ago, the players’ pushback against the idea of a 17-game schedule is rooted deeper than compensation.

“I don’t think it’s something that players are interested in, honestly. And if that’s the point they’re negotiating on, I think these negotiations are going to go on a lot longer than anticipated.

“It’s odd to me — and it’s always odd — when you hear player safety as their biggest concern. They’re really standing up for player safety, player safety, player safety. But it seems like player safety has a price tag. Player safety up to the point of, ‘Hey, 17 games makes us this much money. So we really don’t care how safe they are, if you’re going to pay us this much money to play another game.’

“That’s the part that’s really concerning for us as a union and us as players, because they think that players have a price tag on their health. And I don’t think we’re in the same ballpark in that regard. Players have been more aware of player safety and longevity and just life after football. And the league kind of pretends that they’re interested in it, pretends that they care about it, makes all these rules and fines all these players, but then still proposes for players to play an extra game.

“And not just 17. They’re really just saying 17 so they can get to 18. So that’s two more opportunities for players to risk their bodies and put their bodies on the line. That’s what’s so ridiculous about it, and nobody calls them out. Nobody calls out the hypocrisy.

“I’m hoping that one day people will be brave enough to call out the hypocrisy of saying, ‘Hey we really care about player safety, but hey we also want you to play an extra game, put your body on the line and risk your career.’”

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28751269/nfl-cba-vote-delayed-need-know-biggest-changes-2021-proposal-potential-agreement-line

What’s the main sticking point?

Put simply, the players don’t want to play 17 games. They feel it’s asking too much in a sport that is already ridiculously tough on their health and safety. Sources close to the situation said the reason the NFLPA executive council voted to not recommend the deal was because of concerns some of its members still have over the idea of an expanded regular season and doubts some of them have over the owners’ projections for how much more revenue it would generate.

The meeting in Indianapolis between the two sides is likely to address these issues directly, possibly giving members of the board of player reps a chance to hear the owners’ side of the issue. It’s unlikely that vocally anti-17-game executive council members like Richard Sherman and Russell Okung will be convinced, but it’s possible that meeting could help convince enough player reps to vote in favor of the proposal.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2020/2/21/21145466/nfl-cba-proposal-owners-nflpa-vote-changes-players-revenue-benefits

It should worry the players that the NFL owners want this deal done so badly.

If the owners are so willing to do this deal now, almost a full year before it’s necessary and several weeks before the start of the new league year, what is the reason and what are they gaining from this new CBA?

The NFL owners want a CBA done ASAP so they can start negotiating new TV and streaming deals. That’s where the bulk of the revenue is generated, and with an additional few weeks and two more playoff games, the NFL can name its price for its rights.

On top of that, if an agreement can’t be reached, it could lead to a lockout next offseason. That would leave a bad taste in the mouth of consumers, who have driven NFL ratings and profits up over the last two years of the current CBA deal.

Lastly, tucked away in the bullet points of that deal is a vague mention of gambling:

Gambling definitions that ensures money is included in players’ definition of All Revenue, including portions of non-football activities

That will explode the revenue of the league. This needs to be more defined, but it adds to the reason the NFL wants this done now.

Four reasons the NFL’s CBA proposal is bad for the players

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/four-reasons-nfl-cba-proposal-bad-players-playoff-schedule

If you’re a football fan, you’ve probably read about ongoing negotiations on a new CBA between the NFLPA, which the union representing the players, and management council, which represents the 32 NFL owners.

The NFL’s current collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2020 season, but negotiations have been ongoing this offseason.

The NFLPA executive committee voted 6-5 to not recommend the current proposal to the members, so negotiations continue.

The complete proposal hasn’t been made available to the public, but enough details have leaked over the last two days to get some sense of what’s included.

The NFLPA released this fact sheet outlining key points in the CBA proposal.

And there are a lot of positives for the players. It expands pension eligibility and improves insurance benefits for retired players and raises minimum salaries, eases drug testing and reduces fines.

All good.

But there are plenty of red flags, enough that numerous high-profile players have been tweeting against the proposal.

Here are four reasons the deal as currently proposed is a bad one for the players:

1. The proposal calls for a 17-game regular-season schedule while also calling for an increase in player revenue from the current 47 to 48.5 percent. That’s about a 3.1 percent revenue increase for a 6.3 increase in games played. How is that fair? The owners are going to be raking in massive TV revenue increases, especially with the expanded playoff schedule, but the players won’t be receiving an equivalent share of that money.

2. All players under contract when the league goes to a 17-game schedule — presumably in 2021 — will be paid only $250,000 more for that 17th game game. So anybody with a base salary over $4.25 million in 2021 will essentially be taking a pay cut. The Eagles have 10 players with 2021 base salaries of at least $5 million. Carson Wentz is on the books at $15.4 million. That’s $905,882 per week based on a 17-week schedule. So his weekly salary would go down to $869,440. That’s a $36,000 pay CUT per week. He’ll essentially be making less money per week. Now multiple that pay cut by several hundred players. The NFL will be raking in billions more dollars by increasing the regular season from 256 games to 272 – and eventually more with expansion – and increasing the postseason from 11 games to 13. While essentially asking the players to earn less per week.

3. The proposal does shorten the preseason from four games to three, but there is apparently no second bye week included. So the players are being asked to play 17 regular-season games in an 18-week span in an era where the NFL loves blabbing about player safety. Add to that the likelihood of increased international travel and the wear and tear that takes on a player as the league explores more and more international games. This is just pure greed on the NFL’s part. It’s clear that everything the league says about player safety is just lip service if they are so desperate to add a 17th regular-season game in an era with increased focus on concussions, injuries and player health after football.

4. The NFL is way too eager to get a deal done now when the current CBA doesn’t expire for another year. It definitely benefits both sides to have a deal hammered out and guarantee labor peace for a decade. But you just get the feeling the owners want to get this done before the NFLPA really has a chance to digest the full proposal and its long-term financial implications for the players. The owners over the last few days have embarked on a carefully strategized PR campaign to make this proposal seem like a good one for the players and try to rush a vote through before everybody knew what the implications were. Nobody wants a strike. Nobody wants a lockout. But the players are what makes the league work. Without them there is no NFL. They deserve more than what this CBA proposal calls for.

Andrew Brandt@AndrewBrandt
To everyone asking if I think the potential NFL CBA is a “bad” deal for the Players: it is more nuanced than that. I think the deal could be more “equitable” for both sides. And I know this: inequitable deals never are good, and the NFL does not want an inequitable deal here.

For example, why would this CBA last 10 years when the Players top out at 48.5% of revenues next year? Why not (1) a shorter deal to assess the new economics, (2) earlier opt-outs or (3) incremental gains to 49% after four years, 49.5% after six years and 50% after eight years?

Dan Graziano@DanGrazianoESPN
Sources: NFLPA board of player reps voted 17-14 with one abstaining to move the CBA vote to all players.

Owners agreed to eliminate the $250,000 cap on earnings for 17th game.

Jim Trotter@JimTrotter_NFL
Interesting thoughts from some players reps and exec comm members when asked their gut feeling on whether CBA will be approved. General consensus: they don’t know. They expect it to be as close as EC and player rep votes, which were 6-5 against and 17-14-1 in favor.

Andrew Brandt@AndrewBrandt
So many act like if the Players turn down the proposed CBA there will be Armageddon: no more negotiations, lockouts, strikes, etc. We are a year away from expiration, 20 months away from missed games. Owners want labor peace and 17 games; they need the Players to get it. Please.