The NFL 2011 Thread

[Mark Asher]

Not gonna lie, I'd be perfectly fine with them getting rid of kickoffs altogether.

Me too. And extra points unless a team wants to go for two.

[jpinard]

Marty Schottenheimer is back as a professional head coach . . . in the UFL. Now four of the five UFL teams have former NFL head coaches - Schottenheimer joins Jerry Glanville, Dennis Green, and Jim Fassel.

I remember there were some speculation that the UFL would expand notably if there was an NFL labor breakdown, but so far that doesn't seem to be happening. I'd think they'd need at least 8 teams to be considered a decent option. Five isn't going to cut it, even if it does end up being the only pro game around (except for the Arena League, of course.)

I'd never heard of the UFL until this post.

[Sarkus]

I'd never heard of the UFL until this post.

I was reading around and the reason they haven't expanded is because they are losing money by the ton. Their original business plan expected them to be breaking even by now (after two seasons) and instead they lost something like $50m last year. The most successful franchise they've had, the one in Omaha that averaged about 24,000 fans a game (largest by far) couldn't even pay all its bills. The team that had played in the championship game both years folded after last season.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that I'm not surprised. ;-)

[Blackadar]

Incoming wall o' text...reposted from another site.

We all love our Football and are frustrated that there may be no season. We look for answers for what is going on with the Lockout and CBA, but all we seem to get is a fog of PR and spin. This is my attempt to get beneath that PR spin.

The first thing that should be kept in mind that this is a Lockout in which the owners are asking the players to reduce conditions (benefits) that the players already have; not a Strike based on the players asking for more benefits. The players have said many times they are willing to work under the present contract, which has been in effect since 1993, and been extended five times. However, the owners don't want that, they will not allow the players to return to work until there is a new agreement with the Union. That is why there can be no season with "replacement players" as there was in the football Strike of 1987.

The owners are asking for "Give Backs" in the contract as far as the percentage of NFL revenue they share with the Players Association (NFLPA). This would directly impact the income of the players as a group, and therefore indirectly impact the possible income of players as individuals. It would seem that it is only fair and reasonable that the owners would justify their demands, with something more then words, before the players gave up the right to something they already had. Particularly since it appears the owners are doing better financially then they have ever done before. The present salary cap system was accepted by the employees (Players) in exchange for their giving up the right to unlimited free agency.

First organized in 1956, the NFLPA was not recognized by the owners. Finally In 1968, the NFLPA won recognition from the owners and started to negotiate its first collective bargaining contract. On July 3, 1968, after talks with the owners stalled, the NFLPA voted to strike, and the owners countered by declaring a lockout. But on July 14, the owners relented and the brief strike was over. However, the concessions the Players received were small. The owners compromised by agreeing to contribute about $1.5 million to the pension fund, but maintained minimum salaries of $9,000 for rookies, $10,000 for veterans and $50 per exhibition game.

After they lost their strike in 1987 the Players Association dissolved as a union; and under federal labor law, the players gained standing to file class-action lawsuits against their employers. In 1988, a federal judge ruled that the NFL's unilateral rules limiting free agency did, in fact, impose unlawful restriction on the players' rights to sell their labor to the highest bidder. Unlimited free agency meant, at the end of each players' contract, they would be an unrestricted free agent with no limit, or rules, on what any owner could offer to pay him. This is similar to what exists in Baseball. However, because of the uncertainty of the on-going court cases, both sides decided to compromise and come to an agreement. Therefore, the Players Association again certified itself as a union, and entered into negotiations with the NFL.

In 1993 the NFL and the Players Association, on behalf of the players agreed to the CBA. The players gave up their right to unlimited free agency in exchange for a set percentage of the NFL's revenue which is defined by the Cap. The owners, in exchange, now knew that the free market competition for players services would be limited and governed by certain rules. In addition, the owners received the assurance that the total of players salaries would never be above a certain percentage of their revenues, as defined by the Cap. This was a significant accommodation on the part of the players to the owners. In the eyes of the union, the percentage of NFL revenue reflected in the Cap was bought and paid for already by the Players, in their loss of unlimited free agency. This is the heart and soul belief of the NFLPA and unless there is an extraordinary situation, it is non-negotiable. Since it was founded in 1956, The NFLPA's goal was winning 55 percent of league revenues for players, and it took a victory in court, and the loss of that victory through a negotiated compromise, to finally enable it to do so.

In any case, if your boss came to you and told you, and your fellow workers, that you were going to take a pay cut, wouldn't you ask: Why? Is it because the owner wants to buy a new Caribbean villa, or put this eight year old son on the payroll, or is the business really going broke? In the words of President Reagan, you should trust, but verify. And wouldn't you be upset if the only answer your boss gave you was "because I am your boss and it is my business, and you are too dumb to understand why anyway." You would do everything you could to prevent the pay cut, including taking legal action, and going to court. This is why there is the controversy over "opening the books," and why a perceived lack of respect and progress caused the Union to decertify.

As an aside, in regards to looking into the owner's books: When I was a young man, I was involved in the computer revolution. I made a great deal of money, so I became a chapter S small business corporation. I bought a fancy new sport car, which I called a business expense; put my “girlfriend” on the payroll for "services rendered"; took a lot of “business” trips to luxury resorts to attend so called business meetings or conferences; took friends to football games using my season tickets to improve our business relationship – you get the idea. At the time, they were all 100% tax deducible as a business expense, and who was to say they were not. Every year I would attach a short summary of my books to my tax statement and the government never challenged me, because there were no details. I could do this because no one was watching me, and I was only judge if these expenditures improved my business prospects. I was not a public company so there was no one who was micro-managing my affairs. Nobody knew what I was doing, and if they did they were butting into my business, which they had no right to do.

There is a general misunderstanding about that this Lockout is all about at its core. This can be explained by employee relationship (the players) to the owners which exists on two different levels.

The first level is the group relationship as a whole. This was represented by the Union in the past, and is now represented by the Players Association. The Association differs from the Union, in that legally it can not speak in any BINDING way for the players. Legally (under National Labor Relations Law) the players have no longer certified the Union to act in their behalf, this was the decertification. The former Union is now only an association, (like the National Association of Manufacturers, or Chamber of Commerce) which can advise on common interests, but can not enter into an agreement that binds all of its members. Since the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) only governs Employer/Union relationships, its rules governing Fair Practices are no longer in effect. Each player now can act on their own, acting in their own interest. To protect their interests when they feel they are being impinged upon, like any American, they go to court. A Judge in the legal/litigation will make a decision if any rights were violated, and make the rules that govern the enforcement of his decision. This is a much more uncertain situation for all involved.

Under these circumstances, the best result is that the Lockout is ended, and under the supervision of the judge, the representatives (Lawyers) for each side will work out something agreeable to both sides. On the other hand, the worse case would be the Judge will render a decision which is binding on both parties, and this would be the precedent for years of appeals and litigation. In the pass the players have almost always prevailed in the anti-trust cases in court. However, a Union can not go to court, and as long as there is a union a player can not go to court individually. They are bound by the collective bargaining process between the employer and the union, no matter how long that may take. In collective bargaining the only factor that rules is which side can take the economic pain longer, in court there is the unknown "wild card" of what is the law. It is no longer just a war of attrition, and may in fact, be ended earlier. That is why the owners are fighting the union's decertification. (This may be a first, an employer wanting a Union to stick around, I have never heard of this before.)


(more)

[Blackadar]

(continued)

The final offer from the owners was given to the Union six hours before the CBA expired. In some ways there was an improvement in the owners offer, such as the diminished insistence on the 18 game schedule next year, but in other more important aspects to the Union it was a step backwards. It was one step forward, one step back. Overall, the Union felt no progress was being made in negotiations, they were a sham before an inevitable lockout by the owners. The negotiations were just delaying the inevitable and that was an advantage for the owners. The feeling that the Lockout was inevitable was based on the documents made public after Federal Judge David Doty's ruling on the television rights contracts (the Lockout insurance), and the NFL's appeal of "American Needle vs. the NFL" to the Supreme Court. In this case the NFL argued that it, along with its 32 teams, were a “single entity” and therefore immune to the Sherman Antitrust Act when they act jointly in a business effort. Which, in broad effect, would end the ability of a player to be a free agent. The NFL lost the case 9-0, although the court limited the effects of its decision.

When the Union felt that there is no chance for compromise on the owners part, or even their part, they felt they had no other option then go to court. The members of the Players Association would feel no pain until the start of the season, when they would miss their first check. If this whole negotiation was a sham, maybe going to court will bring this whole thing to a head and force an agreement on both sides before the start of the season. Remember there is no sure thing in court, so both sides will have pressure on them to reach an agreement, like a "Plea Bargain". Negotiations between the parties occur all the time within the legal context. However, if the players waited until the CBA officially expired and an impasse was declared, they would have to wait 6 months before any player could go to court. That would mean we, the fans, would have to wait another 6 months before the courts could even start to end this situation. For sure, there would be no football this season. Therefore, the sooner this situation was brought to a court for resolution, the better.

However, once an unofficial agreement in principle is reached, the Union will be re-certified by the players. Then the Union on behalf of the players (employees) will formally accept the agreement. The the relationship between the employees and employers (owners) will now be governed by the agreement (CBA) under the NLRB rules of behavior. The Union's role is to set up the basic floor level that affected all of the players, all of its members, from the rookie fourth string lineman to the star like Revis, or Brady, this is the CBA. This floor governs the pay of 90% of the players.

However, there is also a second coexistent level of the players relationship to the owners, it is that of independent contractors, who individually sell their services to the owner. This other employee relationship, that of the independent contractor is completely separate from the Union, however it is build on the CBA foundational floor. The CBA can be considered as a common clauses in all the employment contracts of the players.

In theory the independent contractor status exists for all players, but in reality it does not, the rookie fourth string lineman is too easy to replace. He has no bargaining power other then that found in the group. Generally, the rookie fourth string lineman, relationship to the employer is solely governed by the CBA. They are not able to get for themselves benefits above and beyond those found in the CBA. But the star player, by virtual of his being a star, has more bargaining power, which he can use to get conditions above and beyond the average player. He is the exceptional employee who can go into his employer's office and demand more money, or else he will go to work for the employer's competitor. Under the anti-trust laws, all the employers in an industry can not work together (in collusion) to prevent that from happening.

When you join a union, you certify that it can act on your behalf in certain things, but only in certain things. In the players case, it can act on your behalf to set up a minimum salary for all its members. It can act on behalf of all its members to set up a minimum pool of money for the members of each team or even a maximum pool (the cap) for all the players as a group. But no player gives the Union the right to set up an maximum for any individual player. Each player reserves that right as an individual, and can not be forced to give up that right, since that is in fact a restraint of trade, and is illegal under the law. However, when they join the union they can agree to be voluntarily regulated by certain rules that restrict their ability to seek a new employer who pays more, this is a part of the CBA.

It must always be remembered, the role of a Union is to protect the average worker. The exceptional worker can always take care of themselves. But sometimes he will make sacrifices, so that the average worker benefits. This is the most important strength of a union. That is why the lead plaintiffs in the anti-trust case against the owners include Star quarterbacks Tom Brady of the New England Patriots, Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts and Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints.

The owners want to shrink, in effect, that common money pool available to all the players in the future. This will most effect the average player. A star player like Revis or Brady will always have the right to hold out - refuse to play - for any team. They will always have the ability to receive top dollars. This lockout is not about Billionaires vs Millionaires, but rather Billionaires vs the great mass of players who make just over the minimums under the CBA. Some players will always be millionaires, and will not be effected, no matter what the new CBA is. But the average player and fourth string lineman will be.

But why did the owners terminate the contract two years early, bringing on this whole mess. It is not that the owners broke the contract, they oped out as they had the right to do under the CBA, but why did they do so? It is all about the money that will be paid in the new contract between the NFL and the TV networks. The TV networks need to know their budgets before they make their commitment for the pilots of new shows. Therefore they want to know what they will paying for the NFL rights as soon as possible. However if the deal is done while the current CBA is in effect, the expected players share will be known. The owners did not want that to happen. The NFL will be too successful to make arguments for economic relief. They would rather negotiate while the real numbers are unknown.

The TV trade newspaper "The Hollywood Reporter" reports that TV industry analysts expect the NFL will attain its next set of TV agreements for the period beginning in 2014 right after it signs a new collective bargaining agreement with the players association. They estimated that the new long-term NFL rights agreements with ESPN, CBS, Fox and NBC could add $46 billion in additional sports commitments for the TV industry, more then an additional 4.5 Billion per year above what they presently pay. Sports Business Daily reported that ESPN alone would pay $1.8 billion to 1.9 billion annually, up from $1.1 billion, for a new contract. According to the Players Association when they rejected owners proposal, they stated "Your proposal also would have given the owners 100% of all revenues above the low projections, including the first year of new TV contracts in 2014. Your offer did NOT meet the players halfway when it would have given 100% of the additional revenues to the owners." In two years, there would be no question about what kind of money they were talking about, it would no longer be a low projection by the owner, the numbers would be known.

[Lorini]

Thanks Blackadar, good information. I hate Tom Brady a lot less now :)

[Omniscia]

Other site needs to learn the difference between affected and effected.

[Matt Perkins]

no link?

[Dan_Theman]

no link?

It's been widely distributed as of March 23rd. No official sourcing, all I know is it wasn't me.

(google "We all love our Football and are frustrated" to get a list of postings)

[ScubaV]

We all love our Football and are frustrated that there may be no season. We look for answers for what is going on with the Lockout and CBA, but all we seem to get is a fog of PR and spin. This is my attempt to get beneath that PR spin.

Hardly. It reads exactly like a pro-players opinion piece from the perspective of a player or agent. That's fine, but don't try to bullshit me by claiming this is something other that what it is. The author isn't doing himself any favors in that regard.

[Lorini]

From a fan's perspective, the owners are locking the players out. The players are not striking, they want to play but have been locked out. So I don't see a lot of fan sympathy for the owners. In my assessment, that piece was pro-fan.

[Blackadar]

Hardly. It reads exactly like a pro-players opinion piece from the perspective of a player or agent. That's fine, but don't try to bullshit me by claiming this is something other that what it is. The author isn't doing himself any favors in that regard.

Is there anything factually inaccurate or even only a partial truth in that?

[Robert Sharp]

From a fan's perspective, the owners are locking the players out. The players are not striking, they want to play but have been locked out. So I don't see a lot of fan sympathy for the owners. In my assessment, that piece was pro-fan.

You mean from YOUR perspective. I'm also a fan, and I don't see it this way. The players refuse to play unless the owners hand over the books, which is unrealistic as demands go. That said, I think the plan the owners offered was crap too. It was PR spin, meant to look good while actually screwing the players on the percentages.

I don't favor either side in this one. I just hope they get it worked out so we can see some games.

[Sarkus]

Is there anything factually inaccurate or even only a partial truth in that?

That piece is a good summary, but it ignores some things and that is why is may strike some as being more pro-player then pro-owner. The first is that it ignores that the players agreed in the expired CBA that the owners had a right to a certain amount of overall revenue before the players share was determined. This was the money that is supposed to cover expenses that are considered shared by both sides of the "partnership" and that is what the owners are trying to increase. So a precedent has been set and the players share of revenue isn't simply a % of total, its a % of what is left after certain expenses are covered. Though I don't disagree that the owners should be justifying this, they never had to before. Again, precedent already set. Second, and related, is that most of the estimates I've seen have indicated that in raw $ terms the players money would not have decreased in the various owner proposals. In fact, the last ownership proposal guaranteed some large increases in the salary cap. So in raw $ terms the players would have been seeing more money even if their % share had decreased.

On the whole I think the players are in the right on this dispute but at this point both sides are making efforts to present their positions in the best possible light and downlplaying the elements that don't support their positions as much.

[Lorini]

You mean from YOUR perspective. I'm also a fan, and I don't see it this way. The players refuse to play unless the owners hand over the books, which is unrealistic as demands go. That said, I think the plan the owners offered was crap too. It was PR spin, meant to look good while actually screwing the players on the percentages.

I don't favor either side in this one. I just hope they get it worked out so we can see some games.

Um the players are not refusing to play. Sorry, but that's just not correct. The owners are locking the players out because the owners want to take more money under the expired CBA than that CBA allowed them to do so. That's the bottom line.

The previous CBA was based on a percentage of revenues minus expected expenses off the top. The owners want to increase this off the top and the players want justification. I guess it's pro-player to agree that just walking up to a labor organization and asking for more money without justification is perfectly ok.

You look at the GM/Ford situation with their union. GM/Ford could prove that they were losing money, partially because their records are more to begin with as a public company but also because the union was shown the books and could see what was going on. The union gave the management a bunch of concessions and they moved on. The NFL owners won't show the books so why should the players agree to what is essentially a money grab?

Someone convince me but I still don't see this as anything except a way for the owners to get more money and the players to get less money. Why should the players get less money? Most of the players don't get that much money (considering pro sports salaries) to begin with and when their careers are over, 80% of them are either divorced, unemployed or in real trouble either physically, financially or both within five years. That's not true of the owners.

And just so people don't believe I'm necessarily always pro union, the NBA players are going to have a harder time of it, in fact I think the chance of the NBA not having a season next year is far higher than the NFL not having a season. The NBA players are paid more than what can be sustained. Even though that's the owners' fault in the end, something has to give there, and it's probably going to be the players' salaries.

So like I said, I'd seriously like to understand how supporting the owners is a reasonable fan position.

[Sarkus]

So like I said, I'd seriously like to understand how supporting the owners is a reasonable fan position.

There are a lot of people who have a hard time with the idea that people making millions to play a game would be that worked up over not making even more millions. While I can see beyond that on an intellectual level, and understand the players view, there are also a lot of fans who can't. And for most of us this kind of work arangement is pretty foreign to begin with.

And then there are the fans who care about professional sports on the field and don't care about the business side one bit. I've heard plenty of national sports radio host say the feedback they are getting is that most listeners really don't care about the details of this conflict. They just care that their team is playing again this fall, not how fair the financials end up being.

[Robert Sharp]

Yeah, but I'm not in either of those groups Sarkus. If there is no football, I'll live. No big deal, though I will miss it. I also have no problem with players making money. I support their right to fight for more money. However, I also support the owners right to reign that in, IF it is true that their profits are shrinking. The problem is that we have know way of knowing whether they are shrinking. What we know is that the owners caused the lockout. The owners opted out of the CBA. So we know the owners don't like the current arrangement. They claim it's because eventually it will prevent them from making money. Is that true? We don't know. However, I think it's hasty to suggest that because the owners opted out and locked out, they are necessarily in the wrong here.

What seems most likely to me is that both sides are in the wrong to some degree. Both sides want more money for themselves. That makes sense, but it means that they are both at least partly to blame in all of this. That's my opinion on it anyway, and it has nothing to do with resentment, which is how you seem to be framing your two options.

[Anders Hallin]

The players would agree to playing on with the same CBA, as I understand it, while the owners want to change it. In other words, it's only the owners who actually want more money for themselves.

[Blackadar]

That piece is a good summary, but it ignores some things and that is why is may strike some as being more pro-player then pro-owner. The first is that it ignores that the players agreed in the expired CBA that the owners had a right to a certain amount of overall revenue before the players share was determined. This was the money that is supposed to cover expenses that are considered shared by both sides of the "partnership" and that is what the owners are trying to increase. So a precedent has been set and the players share of revenue isn't simply a % of total, its a % of what is left after certain expenses are covered. Though I don't disagree that the owners should be justifying this, they never had to before. Again, precedent already set. Second, and related, is that most of the estimates I've seen have indicated that in raw $ terms the players money would not have decreased in the various owner proposals. In fact, the last ownership proposal guaranteed some large increases in the salary cap. So in raw $ terms the players would have been seeing more money even if their % share had decreased.

On the whole I think the players are in the right on this dispute but at this point both sides are making efforts to present their positions in the best possible light and downlplaying the elements that don't support their positions as much.

The players haven't objected to the holdback for the owners before revenue sharing. They've objected to a rather large increase in the holdback for the owners before revenue sharing. Currently the owners hold back $1B before revenue sharing. Their first proposal was to hold back $2B. So I don't get your point. The fact that precedent already exists for $1B means that $2B shouldn't be justified? That's what you seem to be arguing, but that makes very little sense.

Also, every single proposal from the owners has resulted in fewer dollars to the players. The last proposal - the NFL's best - would have netted the players $141M per team with benefits, but during 2008 that number was capped at $151M. Furthermore, that same proposal "froze" cap increases to a set amount, regardless of whether the NFL had better-than-average revenue gains. With the TV contract coming up in 2013 and the TV proceeds from that contract expected to rise substantially, that's almost a sure thing. Yet the owners wouldn't share any of those gains until after the 2014 season.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=6232635

[Eightball]

The players haven't objected to the holdback for the owners before revenue sharing. They've objected to a rather large increase in the holdback for the owners before revenue sharing. Currently the owners hold back $1B before revenue sharing. Their first proposal was to hold back $2B. So I don't get your point. The fact that precedent already exists for $1B means that $2B shouldn't be justified? That's what you seem to be arguing, but that makes very little sense.

The owners are saying that 1 billion goes to debt servicing and stadium financing, both of which they say have proven to be substantially higher expenses than anticipated under the old CBA. Stadiums ARE more expensive (think Jerryland, but also think Meadowlands, etc.), and the team prices have raised substantially in the past half decade, so new owners have to adopt a far higher debt burden when purchasing a team. So, it's not just WE WANT MORE MONEY JUST BECAUSE. I still wonder how much they're using the team to finance their own personal lifestyles, however...

Also, every single proposal from the owners has resulted in fewer dollars to the players. The last proposal - the NFL's best - would have netted the players $141M per team with benefits, but during 2008 that number was capped at $151M.

Yeah, but the difference is that under the old CBA, many teams did not spend to the cap. Most teams were spending way below that, and several were sitting at the salcap floor (hi to you, Buffalo).

[Sarkus]

The players haven't objected to the holdback for the owners before revenue sharing. They've objected to a rather large increase in the holdback for the owners before revenue sharing. Currently the owners hold back $1B before revenue sharing. Their first proposal was to hold back $2B. So I don't get your point. The fact that precedent already exists for $1B means that $2B shouldn't be justified? That's what you seem to be arguing, but that makes very little sense.

The original piece does not mention the holdback at all and simplifies some things, so that was why I mentioned those details. As I noted, I personally believe the owners should have to justify what they are asking for, but the reality is that the players in the past agreed to the holdback and did so without demanding proof of its need. While that does not mean they have to agree to it this time, precedents do play a role when you bring in third parties to rule on your disputes, as is the case with a judge in this situation. I'm simply pointing out that the possibility exists that the players will not automatically get what they want, in part because in the past they have not asked for the standard of justification they are asking for this time.

[Blackadar]

The owners are saying that 1 billion goes to debt servicing and stadium financing, both of which they say have proven to be substantially higher expenses than anticipated under the old CBA. Stadiums ARE more expensive (think Jerryland, but also think Meadowlands, etc.), and the team prices have raised substantially in the past half decade, so new owners have to adopt a far higher debt burden when purchasing a team. So, it's not just WE WANT MORE MONEY JUST BECAUSE. I still wonder how much they're using the team to finance their own personal lifestyles, however...

Which is what the players are wondering.

Yeah, but the difference is that under the old CBA, many teams did not spend to the cap. Most teams were spending way below that, and several were sitting at the salcap floor (hi to you, Buffalo).

I don't believe the floor was raised in the last proposal, but I'm not sure. That info is hard to find.

The original piece does not mention the holdback at all and simplifies some things, so that was why I mentioned those details. As I noted, I personally believe the owners should have to justify what they are asking for, but the reality is that the players in the past agreed to the holdback and did so without demanding proof of its need. While that does not mean they have to agree to it this time, precedents do play a role when you bring in third parties to rule on your disputes, as is the case with a judge in this situation. I'm simply pointing out that the possibility exists that the players will not automatically get what they want, in part because in the past they have not asked for the standard of justification they are asking for this time.

That possibility existed regardless of precedent. However, should the union be rules that it legally decertified and the Brady v. NFL suit continue, it's very likely the players will wind up with financial statements during the subpoena process.

[Lorini]

From latimes.com:

In a recent early poll on the NFL labor dispute conducted by FoxSports.com, nearly 80% of those questioned sided with the players and against the owners. That's an unheard-of response. Also a wake-up call.

That says even people who are anti union are siding with the players. Full (sad) article [http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-....column]here.]

[Mark Asher]

It's hard to have much sympathy for the owners when they won't even open their books.

[caesarbear]

It's hard to have much sympathy for the owners when they won't even open their books.

If they open their books, you'll have even less sympathy for them.

[Sarkus]

Interesting legal maneuver that could force the owners to rethink the lockout - a group of former players have filed a class-action lawsuit, that also covers incoming prospective players, pointing out that they are not covered by the NFLPA and that the league is essentially violating anti-trust laws by locking them out as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...nst_NFL_032811

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

From latimes.com:



That says even people who are anti union are siding with the players. Full (sad) article [http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-....column]here.]

That is weird, the comments at profootballtalk.com seem 90% pro owner....

I wonder if someone has a PR department stuffing the ballot box?

[Erik J.]

Ochocinco was allowed to stay on with KC's reserve team. Good for him.

[Matt Perkins]

Looks like Talib will not be with the Bucs, or anyone, next year...

[BennyProfane]

Chad Pennington tears ACL

Not sure this is even an NFL topic any more, since as nearly as I can tell he's not really in the NFL any more. Plus, of course, there is no NFL right now.