NFL owners opt out of labor deal
UPDATED: 10:41 a.m.
NFL owners voted this morning to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association.
A league meeting is underway this morning in Atlanta.
No statement of reaction is available yet on the NFL Players Association web site, but union executive director Gene Upshaw was quoted Monday on the site and said the action was expected for the past six months.
"If they don't do it next week then it will be soon after that," Upshaw said in a statement posted Monday. "They want to opt out and we don't."
At the meetings, 24 of 32 owners had to vote to extend the current CBA.
When the deal was approved in March 2006, only Bengals president Mike Brown and Buffalo owner Ralph Wilson voted against it.
The Enquirer has requested an interview with Brown to explain to Bengals fans what today's news means to them and the region.
Here is the NFL's statement on that decision:
The current Collective Bargaining Agreement, initially negotiated in 1993, has been extended on several occasions, most recently in March 2006. The 2006 extension, which could have continued through the 2012 season, gave both the NFL and the NFLPA an option to shorten the deal by one or two years.
NFL clubs today voted unanimously to exercise that option and to continue negotiating a new agreement for the 2011 season and beyond that will work better for both the clubs and the players.
What does this mean to fans and games on the field?
Even without another agreement, NFL football will be played without threat of interruption for at least the next three seasons. The 2008 and 2009 seasons will be played with a salary cap. If there is no new agreement before the 2010 season, that season will be played without a salary cap under rules that also limit the free agency rights of the players. If not extended, the agreement would expire at the end of the 2010 league year.
We are resolved to do our best to achieve a fair agreement that will allow labor peace to continue through and beyond the 2011 season.
What are the issues?
A collective bargaining agreement has to work for both sides. If the agreement provides inadequate incentives to invest in the future, it will not work for management or labor. And, in the context of a professional sports league, if the agreement does not afford all clubs an opportunity to be competitive, the league can lose its appeal.
The NFL earns very substantial revenues. But the clubs are obligated by the CBA to spend substantially more than half their revenues – almost $4.5 billion this year alone -- on player costs. In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs’ incentive to invest in the game is threatened.
There are substantial other elements of the deal that simply are not working. For example, as interpreted by the courts, the current CBA effectively prohibits the clubs from recouping bonuses paid to players who subsequently breach their player contacts or refuse to perform. That is simply irrational and unfair to both fans and players who honor their contracts. Also irrational is that in the current system some rookies are able to secure contracts that pay them more than top proven veterans.
Our objective is to fix these problems in a new CBA, one that will provide adequate incentives to grow the game, ensure the unparalleled competitive balance that has sustained our fans’ interest, and afford the players fair and increasing compensation and benefits.