Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals
posted at 3/2/2011 10:33 AM EST
In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judge rules that the NFL acted against Players in its TV deals : This particular ruling is about the TV revenues and how that deal was negotiated. Under the CBA the league is required to negotiate in ways that maximize revenues for both players and the league. The "war chest" deal that the owners worked out was found to benefit the owners but actually limit revenues for players. It was therefore found to be invalid because it violated the terms of the CBA. This puts in question the owners ability to use this so-called war chest. The war chest, as you'll remember, was the amount the owners get paid by the networks during a lock out. That whole arrangement is now in question. Unfortunately, there were apparently documents showing that the owners pursued this agreement with the networks specifically because it gave them advantages over the players. Doty reacted in part to these documents which were evidence that the owners weren't negotiating with the TV networks in ways which were consistent with their agreements with the players.
Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
Do you have sources to back these series of statements or are these opinions?
Not trying to be combative, just curious if what you are saying is factually correct or just your take on the matter.
If what you are saying is true:
1. It will be hard to prove that (advantages over players) as intent.
2. The owners re-negotiating with the tv deals may not be a violation of their own deal under the CBA with the players, whatsoever.
3. I fail to see how what the owners get paid during a lockout has to do with a previously negotiated CBA where the players were honored under the CBA in full the entire time.
If they honored the previous CBA deal and followed the, the "war chest" savings by the owners as a whole has no bearing on the new CBA deal nor is it the players' business, in my opinion. It's no really tied to it.
I understand the union gets a cut of the revenue. Unless this has not happened, I don't get where this claim is coming from.
Everything is negotiable in a situation like this. So, unless the owners are looking to severely reduce the total share from the tv deals, down from 60% I believe, then it doesn't matter who negotiated what in terms of the owners actually trying to increase the pot.
I do think it's fair to show total revenue to use it as a starting point for the new CBA. Sure. I am assuming that's already been done.
Does the union get involved with the tv deal negotiation? That's one question I don't have an answer for. Maybe you do.
I do see how it might provoke some feelings of disconcert, etc, but not anything more than that, nor is does it read like the owners were violating the previous CBA deal by adjusting the deal they had with the tv companies.
Keep in mind how brutal this economic situation has been for pretty much every single industry.
Also, there is no league without the owners running it and supporting it to make it go.
I just don't think in a million years the owners would risk circumventing the previous CBA in order to put aside a war chest to leverage this new deal. It has more to do with them having control to re-invest in the league, in my opinion.
It's why we see Goodell dancing around Ontario and Europe every year trying to promote the NFL. They are desperate for new streams of revenue.
Or, we are looking at contraction, which may be a good thing, actually.
I also find it hard to believe the NFL made more from the tv deal in the last few years considering the downturn in advertsising investment, etc.
Goodell is a lawyer himself and I just don't see him presiding over something as sketchy as that.