The sense of inevitability that the 32 N.F.L. owners tried to project last week when they rushed to New York to approve a proposed 10-year labor agreement has turned into a battle, with faction lines drawn not just between owners and players, but also within the players’ union itself.
The main stumbling block is a core feature of the proposal — the addition of a 17th regular-season game, which has been met with vocal opposition from many players who say the season is already too long and dangerous. J.J. Watt, the star defensive end for the Houston Texans, was among those digging in their heels against the idea last week. “Hard no on that proposed CBA,” Watt wrote on Twitter on Thursday.
Hard no on that proposed CBA.
— JJ Watt (@JJWatt) February 21, 2020
Several dozen players will get a chance to ask the owners about the deal in Indianapolis on Tuesday, when owners, the union’s executive committee and player representatives will meet.
The meeting was scheduled after the union’s 11-person executive committee, which is in charge of negotiations for the players, last week voted 6 to 5 not to recommend the proposed deal to the 32 player representatives. Those voting no included Richard Sherman and Russell Okung, two influential voices on the committee.
After the meeting with the owners, a vote by the player representatives is scheduled. If the proposed agreement gets approval from union representatives, it will then be put to the full membership body of players.
The union’s executive director, DeMaurice Smith, has argued that players ought to approve the proposal partly because continuing to negotiate may not yield more concessions from the owners, and may even prompt them to pull concessions off the table.
The player representatives spoke by phone last Friday after the executive committee vote, and some were unconvinced. Aaron Rodgers, the star quarterback and union representative for the Green Bay Packers, called Smith’s view fearmongering, according to a person briefed on the call who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly.
George Atallah, a union spokesman, did not return calls requesting comment.
After the player representatives’ call, their vote was delayed pending this week’s talks, which could either be a final hurdle before a vote or lead to months of additional negotiations.
Some players expect more concessions from the owners in return for a 17th game. But they have questions about how the extra regular-season game would be valued. In particular, they are unhappy that the owners want to cap pay from that game at $250,000, which would amount to a significant haircut for highly paid players like Rodgers as long as their current contracts last.
The owners have agreed to sweeteners, including expanded rosters, more players on practice squads, higher minimum salaries and reductions in the number of full-contact practices and preseason games. The players would also receive 48.5 percent of shared revenue (compared with 47 percent now), enhanced medical and pension benefits, and more lenient testing for marijuana.
Many of these elements may mean little to players with eight- and nine-figure contracts. But they are likely to appeal to younger players on the fringes of the game, who make up the bulk of union membership.
“The deal is better from the perspective of an incoming player or someone who is one to three years in the league,” said Jodi Balsam, who worked as a lawyer at the N.F.L. and now teaches at Brooklyn Law School. “The league is trying to sweeten the pot by cutting back on training camp and getting rid of a preseason game, but when it comes down to the dollars, it probably doesn’t make sense for a veteran player to vote yes.”
The players are discovering other potential trap doors, including an item listed at the end of a fact sheet the union distributed to players last week that claimed that under the proposal, filing workers’ compensation claims would be made easier. Brad Sohn, a lawyer who has represented players in cases against the N.F.L., said that he believed the change would force players to file disputes with an arbitrator, not the courts, which would eliminate potential damages a player could receive and close off a remedy if players believe a team has been negligent in handling their injury.
“There would be an arbitration mechanism, but the courtroom doors would be locked,” Sohn said. “You are removing the ability to hold anyone accountable.”
As the clock ticks closer to the start of the league year on March 18, more players are recognizing that the owners’ push to get a deal signed could give them more leverage.
With billions of dollars in new revenue expected to flow in from broadcast agreements that expire soon — currently the league makes around $8 billion a year for its various media rights — the owners argue that adopting the deal before the start of the new league year will allow both sides to split that windfall as soon as possible.
If a new deal isn’t reached by the end of the league year, the players will have to elect a new union president, which could change the tenor of the negotiations. The current president, the former Bengals offensive tackle Eric Winston, is ineligible to run because he is no longer an active player. The union will elect his replacement in early March.
The only player to announce his candidacy is Okung, who opposes adding a 17th game to the schedule. He is widely expected to run against Sherman, who has also come out against a 17th game.
That further raises the stakes for the meetings and any potential votes this week.
Source: Football - nytimes.com
