Federal judge rules NFL violated deal

[RON_IN_OC]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379


MINNEAPOLIS -- A federal judge backed the NFL players' union over the league on Tuesday in a dispute over television revenue with implications for the looming potential lockout.

U.S. District Judge David Doty ruled that the league violated its agreement with the union in carving out $4 billion for itself in additional television revenue. The union had argued that the league was effectively stockpiling money to prepare for a lockout.

Scott Van Pelt

ESPN NFL insider Chris Mortensen updates us on the latest CBA negotiations and says Cam Newton left teams with more questions than answers at the Combine.

Doty overruled a special master.

"This ruling means there is irrefutable evidence that owners had a premeditated plan to lockout players and fans for more than two years," union spokseman George Attalah said in a statement after Tuesday's ruling. "The players want to play football. That is the only goal we are focused on."

Doty ordered that a hearing be held to determine damages for the players. That hearing wasn't immediately scheduled. The union had asked that the TV money be placed in escrow until the end of any lockout.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello downplayed the significance of the ruling, saying that clubs were "prepared for any contingency."

"Today's ruling will have no effect on our efforts to negotiate a new, balanced labor agreement," Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

 

[Snakester]

This doesn't sound good. I really hoped after all the meetings that they have been having that the two sides would be close to an agreement. The players union and the players themselves really have had a sweet deal. I hope they aren't asking for too much more than they are already getting now because they could all be out of a job soon. The owners can afford to bust the union, they are all rich.

If you look at all this from a business standpoint, what business owners has anyone ever heard of that are contracted to give 50% of what they make to their labor. I could very easily see the owners bust the union, fire all the players and start over and in two years not miss a beat. All they have to do is put all new players on the field and make sure the season starts on time. I could also see the owners go back to a 12 round draft for a couple of years to.

The biggest mistake the owners can make is to not put a product on the field. If they have a lockout and there is no football for a year then that will piss enough fans off that it could do serious damage to the NFL.

 

[Zeno]

This doesn't sound good. I really hoped after all the meetings that they have been having that the two sides would be close to an agreement. The players union and the players themselves really have had a sweet deal. I hope they aren't asking for too much more than they are already getting now because they could all be out of a job soon. The owners can afford to bust the union, they are all rich.

If you look at all this from a business standpoint, what business owners has anyone ever heard of that are contracted to give 50% of what they make to their labor. I could very easily see the owners bust the union, fire all the players and start over and in two years not miss a beat. All they have to do is put all new players on the field and make sure the season starts on time. I could also see the owners go back to a 12 round draft for a couple of years to.

The biggest mistake the owners can make is to not put a product on the field. If they have a lockout and there is no football for a year then that will piss enough fans off that it could do serious damage to the NFL.

Not only are the players the labor they are the raw material as well...it isn't a business model that is replicated outside of sports and the entertainment industry. You can't compare this to any other kind of operation.

 

[crisper57]

This is actually a good thing for the fans. I guts the owners' "war-chest" and now they have to negotiate knowing that they won't be getting free TV revenues through a work-stoppage. This ruling compels them to negotiate quickly and in good faith.

Here's what happened: Basically, the NFL agreed to negotiate contracts (with TV, merchandise, etc.) on behalf of owners and players. In doing so, they agreed to maximize revenues, creating a bigger pie from which each party gets its piece.

The ruling states that the NFL gave up some revenues in 09-10 in order to secure TV contracts in 11, even if there was a lockout. While this deal benefited owners in 11, it hurt the players in 09-10, because it shrank the pie from which they took their money. Therefore, it violated the revenue maximization agreement.

I think the judge had no choice but to make this ruling, given what all parties agreed to under the prior CBA.