Commissioner Roger Goodell joined the fray Tuesday with an over-the-top column in the Wall Street Journal, and it attacked the players’ decision to dissolve the union after a series of failed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement.
In reality, when the owners and players couldn’t reach a new CBA, the players used their greatest form of leverage by decertifying. The two sides were extremely far apart during their negotiations — you’d have to weave through each side’s rhetoric to come to your own conclusion about the final proposals — and the players dissolved to try their hand in court and hope to save the 2011 regular season. So far, their tactic has worked.
Goodell also listed a series of worst-case scenarios that could come from the decertification and the players’ “vision” for the future of the NFL. He cited the elimination of the draft, no minimum team payroll, no minimum player salary, no standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer serious injuries and no league-wide agreements on benefits and no limits on free agency (which turned into the idea of players colluding to form super teams).
So, in essence, Goodell argued the players have tried to set themselves up to make less money and sacrifice their health benefits, when it’s well-known that approximately 20 percent of the league finishes the season on injured reserve each year. Does Goodell expect the readers to believe the players consciously set themselves up for those perils?
There’s a lot of PR coming from each side as they try to jockey for the fans’ support, and it’s dangerous to take everything verbatim. Somehow, you’ve got to find some neutral ground to formulate some opinions on your own.
But there are facts here. The CBA was supposed to run through the 2011 season, but the owners exercised their clause to opt out one year early in 2008. Then the owners renegotiated the NFL’s television deals to set themselves up with a $4 billion cushion in the event of a lockout — a pile of money that the players wouldn’t see. Since, Judge David Doty ruled the owners renegotiated the TV deals without the players’ best interests in mind — which is the opposite of collectively bargaining — and has temporarily frozen that money.
So, during the CBA negotiations in late February and early March, the owners asked the players for a higher cut of the league’s total revenue, and the owners offered no explanation for where the money would go. On the heels of the TV scandal, why would the players trust the owners when they refused to offer any type of explanation?
Goodell was right about a couple things. The league has thrived under its current system, and the popularity of the sport hits a new high with each season. But does that have to do with the CBA or the product on the field? In reality, it’s a combination of both.
And there are definitely some concerns in operating without a CBA. It will be fine for 2011 and maybe even 2012, but after that, it could be difficult for the league to take big steps forward with expansion, relocation and the construction of new stadiums.
Yet, Goodell preferred to focus on the most extreme measures with his column, attacking the players while sparing the owners who appointed him. The players aren’t without fault in this process, but they also haven’t negotiated with the intentions of sending the NFL into Armageddon, as Goodell loosely suggested.
The extreme PR spins are nothing new during this work stoppage. You just don’t want them coming from the commissioner.
Do you agree with Roger Goodell’s comments in the Wall Street Journal? Leave your thoughts below.
