Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
But that will never happen.
NFL players have shorter careers, and lower pay for the “rank and file” players compared to their MLB counterparts.
If the NFLPA decides to play maximum hardball by rejecting the current CBA, going on strike, etc, they’ll likely face the reality of eventually having to accept a worse deal and a broken union with many of the “rank and file” players revolting agains the hardline stance of the union leadership.
Why would that happen though?
The NFL makes huge money, the only players who got a worse deal striking were the NHL ones and that was because well their game doesn't make as much money. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Why would that happen though?
The NFL makes huge money, the only players who got a worse deal striking were the NHL ones and that was because well their game doesn't make as much money.
Because the only leverage the players have against the owners is the urgency by the owners to get a CBA done now so they can begin negotiating the new media rights agreements and maximize its potential value.
The owners believe that they can maximize the new media rights value now with the strong economy (although they may have already missed that opportunity with the recent stock market downturn), and consecutive seasons of rebounding/stronger TV ratings (the NFL believes that TV ratings could take a hit this upcoming season due to the presidential election, similar to 2016 and put them in a weaker negotiating position a year from now).
Without the urgency of the moment, the owners have no incentive to offer concessions or an improved CBA to the players and will likely be willing to play the long game knowing that the weak players union will not stay united and will eventually crumble. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Once again, if they would use the example of the MLB and realize they have power if they'd stick together, they'd get what they want.
No they wouldn't. If they go on strike, the owners can wait them out. The average professional football players' career is only 4 years. They can't afford to lose 25% of their career earnings.
At the end of the day, 48.8% of the revenue is a good deal. Higher minimum salaries, expanded rosters, etc...are all good for the players. If they turn down this deal, I promise you the deal they end up with will be worse.
I know this isn't the same thing and is a little apples to oranges, but I helped with a union contract negotiation in 2017. The deal we offered the workers in June was fair and increased their pay and benefits. They turned that offer down and were playing hardball on a couple of items like PTO and 401k match. Their existing contract ran out in September and we let them work without a contract until the end of October when we locked them out. The lockout took two weeks and then we came to an agreement. That agreement was much worse than the contract we offered them in June of that year. They got less in pay increases, their insurance premiums went up by 3% more than the previous offer, and we eliminated paid sick leave. When the rank and file cannot afford to live without pay for any amount of time, the leverage is on the eyes of the owners. [Reply]