Pre-emptive NFLPA decertification - huh?

[Mista T]

Can anyone explain in simple English WTF would be the implication of the "planned", or "maybe", or "maybe not" pre-emptive NFLPA decertification? I have advanced education and decades of business/contracting experiencing, but I admit to total bewilderment by labor laws which would permit a union to decertify while still under contract:

the NFL Players Association plans to decertify by Thursday in an effort to pre-empt an owners-generated lockout, according to multiple league and union sources.

The collective bargaining agreement says the NFLPA in effect must wait six months to decertify if it does it after the collective bargaining agreement expires

.

Regardless on my lack of appreciation as to how this can be done, does anyone know what this means as to how the NFL will administer its player personnel: salary cap, free agency rules, etc? If the NFL can't prevail that the NFLPA decertification is a sham, will Judge Doty become the de facto commissioner?

[HoustonRaven]

I idea behind de-certification is actually pretty simple. But make no mistake, this is a tactic. This is the last route the players wish to take (call it the Nuclear Option) and I will explain why.

If the NFLPA de-certifies, they are no longer a Union. The owners then cannot lock out any employee of the team. As such, the CBA goes away and they can then take the teams to court over anti-trust issues.

The players view the league as one entity -- 32 teams that have formed this mega sports empire, minus the Packers, that offers no real choice for the players as to what team for which they work.

The league views itself as (and is set up as) a non-profit organization that simply organizes the 32 teams and sets the rules of the cooperating association. Indeed, the NFL is a 501(c)(3). That means the league offices an make a profit but a certain percentage of their profit must go back into league. The league makes the argument that the because of this distinction, the 32 teams operate independently of the league, competing for business amongst one another. This also allows the teams to act as 32 separate and non-public businesses, free from having them disclose their profits (except for the Packers, who operate their team as a public enterprise -- that lost money last year, btw).

By de-certifying, they can then challenge the league in court via anti-trust, claiming it is not an association but an actual monopoly, impeding competition in the pro football world.

IMO, this is the height of cutting off your nose in spite of your face and why the threats of de-certifying are laughable. The players know they have a great product and are not going to go down a road that kills the golden goose. This move effectively puts the issue inside a court, guaranteeing the issue will drag out well into next season, possibly meaning there would be no season next year.

Once again, put me on the side of the owners.

[HoustonRaven]

A good explanation from Florio over at PFT. He is a lawyer and has a good handle on the issue:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...leverage-play/

[Dade]

Thanks HR for the info. Sounds like posturing.

[Mista T]

I understand all the supposed leverage, bravado, chutzpah, dong-waving, and other techniques that lawyers have tried using against me for decades. And I was with you all the way up to this statement:

This move effectively puts the issue inside a court, guaranteeing the issue will drag out well into next season, possibly meaning there would be no season next year.

If this gets into the court system, it could take years to get resolved, possibly by the Supremes. But in the meantime, I can't see a scenario whereby there would be no football. The players would be freed from union shackles to negotiate deals with owners and play by owners rules. Assumedly, these would be the current rules, or at least the 2009 season rules. If players don't like owners rules, they would be free to find employment elsewhere, just like owners would be free to hire scabs, since the NFLPA no longer exists. There's no other rich body like the NFL for the super star players, so they would likely still be out there, wearing the same uniforms. I am surmising all the above, since I don't know any better from the articles which I've been reading.

Not a too bad scenario for fans in 2011.

The only downside would be Judge Doty acting too liberally by inventing player-friendly rules while the appeals process meanders along, and/or an ultimate judicial anti-trust decision to invalidate the draft and/or the salary cap.

Or am I just pissing in the wind?

[HoustonRaven]

Not quite, Ted.

For one, de-certifying doesn't necessarily mean this will go to court. Just gives the players the option to do so.

Neither side wants this to go to court since that guarantees zero revenue and zero paychecks for a considerable length of time. The owners can afford it, the players cannot. And neither side wants scabs. Both sides keenly remember the 80's and what a debacle that was. No side wants it.

This is leverage and nothing more.

[Jeremiah W]

From what I read, the decertification would essentially block the lockout and football would continue under the current rules until the issues are resolved.

NFL players have a horrible deal compared to the players int he other major sports. They are the only ones with one sided contracts and the average "rookie contract" lasts longer than the average rookie does.
There may be some benifits for the average player that I do not know about, but to me it seems like the players would be better off without a union and a CBA. They would just sign with the highest bidder right out of college to a real contract and make what they are worth to the teams not what some draft slot says they are.

Some teams would spend more and build better rosters, but as long as there are limts on the size of rosters and only 32 teams, there will still be decent competitve balance. Worst case scenario it would be like it used to be before free agency and the cap or sort of like college football is now with programs like Bama, USC and Florida loading up and dominating but still not unbeatable.

[ActualSpamBot]

JW is correct in that decertification would essentially put a pause on the entire Labor debacle. If it does happen then football would go on next season basically as it did this year.

That said his theory that it would somehow invalidate the draft is probably erroneous, and even if it wasn't, who in their right mind would be in favor of that? An NFL without a draft would be horrible.

Miami, New York Jets and Giants, Dallas, and San Diego would dominate the free agent signings because of the cultural, media, and night life draws of those cities and everyone else would have to overpay to make up for the shortcomings of their towns. What college kid wants to come to Baltimore or Pittsburgh if they can make an ass-ton of money to be a backup in some beautiful city?

[Jeremiah W]

JW is correct in that decertification would essentially put a pause on the entire Labor debacle. If it does happen then football would go on next season basically as it did this year.

That said his theory that it would somehow invalidate the draft is probably erroneous, and even if it wasn't, who in their right mind would be in favor of that? An NFL without a draft would be horrible.

Miami, New York Jets and Giants, Dallas, and San Diego would dominate the free agent signings because of the cultural, media, and night life draws of those cities and everyone else would have to overpay to make up for the shortcomings of their towns. What college kid wants to come to Baltimore or Pittsburgh if they can make an ass-ton of money to be a backup in some beautiful city?

Supply vs demand principles would pretty much sort it out as long as there are roster limits.

Also why would a team pay a guy a ton of money to ride the bench?

There could still be a draft, but I can not see how without a CBA. IBM can not just draft the best IT guys coming out of collge every year, they have to recruit and pay them.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

NFL players have a horrible deal compared to the players int he other major sports. They are the only ones with one sided contracts and the average "rookie contract" lasts longer than the average rookie does.
There may be some benifits for the average player that I do not know about, but to me it seems like the players would be better off without a union and a CBA.

While the NFL players for a long time had the "worse" deal out of the 4 major sports, that has and is changing.

Things like having non garunteed contracts, Franchise and other tags, and a real, legit "hard cap" were things that only in the NFL from about 92-2004.

However, the NHL owners locked the players out for an entire season to get what they wanted, and now they as well have a hard cap and likely will have the owners push for non garunteed contracts after this CBA expires (expect a strike/lockout again if this is pressed by the NHL owners...which is expected).

The NBA is about to go through what the NFL is going through right now...likely there will be a "hard cap" put in, and the Larry Bird exemption will be gone. Also, after the Lebron and Carmelo crap, look for the NBA to look for restrictive tags...Franchise and the like. They also are looking at a lockout as nasty as the NFL is right now and the owners likely are going to stand their ground on this stuff.

The garunteed contracts stuff is the only thing that is not a garuntee for those 2, but it will be pushed.

MLBPA is it's own animal...they are IMHO the strongest union in sports and the MLB owners have no backbone...and what you see is the garbage we have now. We have great MLB cities that just can't compete...even when they get good, it only lasts until the stars contracts are up...Kansas City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit...cities with strong MLB histories that showed they could win when the playing field was even and they could keep their players...when they couldn't, well, you see what happens.

They would just sign with the highest bidder right out of college to a real contract and make what they are worth to the teams not what some draft slot says they are.

Some teams would spend more and build better rosters, but as long as there are limts on the size of rosters and only 32 teams, there will still be decent competitve balance. Worst case scenario it would be like it used to be before free agency and the cap or sort of like college football is now with programs like Bama, USC and Florida loading up and dominating but still not unbeatable.

That is an awful idea. I know you have been on this bizarre "get rid of the draft and have a signing frenzy out of college" kick for a while, but it is dumb. The idea of sports leagues should be to give each team as much of an equal opportunity to improve itself as it can...and the only way to do so is the draft.

And you can't compare it to college...I know there is some money "under the table" that is offered, it is nothing compared to what would happen in the pros. The Ravens would be an also-ran...barely average and you'd see historic teams like the Packers, Steelers, 49ers, Raiders, Chiefs fall by the wayside...who wants to see that?

You want to know why MLB sucks and nobody watches their games...it's because before the season even starts, at least 15 of the fan bases don't care because they know their team can't compete. And that translates into less money for the teams and trickles down the players.

You want to know why the NFL kicks ass? Because even the damn Browns can start the season thinking they have a shot at the playoffs. And all this damn money they are bickering over is because of the incredible flow of money from fans from all 32 teams.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

Supply vs demand principles would pretty much sort it out as long as there are roster limits.

It hasn't in Baseball

There could still be a draft, but I can not see how without a CBA. IBM can not just draft the best IT guys coming out of collge every year, they have to recruit and pay them.

Sports leagues are regarded as single entities. They share revenue, they set rules and regulations, they negotiate the deals. Sorta like a conglomerate.

You can't compare it to IBM and say Microsoft recruiting...they are completely separate companies. IBM doesn't negotiate deals on Microsoft's behalf, share revenue etc.

[HoustonRaven]

JW is correct in that decertification would essentially put a pause on the entire Labor debacle. If it does happen then football would go on next season basically as it did this year.

Not exactly.

Yes, the owners would then be free to start a season. But the players are on record saying they would not play until a new CBA is in place, thus forcing the owners to use scabs. Neither side wants that.

And the players would still have a pending claim in Judge Doty's court that would need to resolved. I doubt he'd allow a season to go on while the matter was still an open issue in his court.

Miami, New York Jets and Giants, Dallas, and San Diego would dominate the free agent signings because of the cultural, media, and night life draws of those cities and everyone else would have to overpay to make up for the shortcomings of their towns. What college kid wants to come to Baltimore or Pittsburgh if they can make an ass-ton of money to be a backup in some beautiful city?

In general, I agree with this. But I'd be willing to bet that this scenario, which would be a nightmare for the Ravens given their financial make up as compared to other teams, would be controlled by teams like the Cowboys, Redskins, Raiders and Giants -- they are leaps and bounds more flush with cash and future revenue than any other team. While sitting on a beach in San Diego is certainly a great thought, it's not that attractive when the team cannot pony up the cash. ;)

If de-certification happens, Daniel Snyder, Al Davis, Jerry Jones, John Mera and Steve Tisch will be grinning from ear to ear. They would effectively be able to buy any and all FA players, thus rendering all of them the NY Yankees of the NFL world.

That one, succinct reason is why I am on the side of the league / owners in this whole mess. Don't forget, there is an internal battle between the owners themselves that is not being reported on much and it's the four I mention above against the rest of the league owners. These four would benefit either way so there is no real interest in their part to get a CBA and revenue sharing back in place.

It's parity that makes this league great and the scenario that JW, the NFLPA and others spell out makes me sad that some cannot see the forest through the trees.