Earlier today, the Sports Business Journal obtained an email from NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith to agents across the league. Allegedly, the email informed agents to make sure their clients were financially prepared for a work stoppage of up to a year in the event a new collective bargaining agreement was not reached. What does this impending lockout mean for the league and its players?
What’s the Issue?
The NFLPA has a couple of issues under the current CBA. Some are speculating that players want an increased share of league revenues, more guarantees in contracts, and removal of marijuana from the banned substance list. I have already covered my views on marijuana in sports, so let’s look at the other two issues. Under the current CBA, players get 47% of league revenues. Players put their bodies on the line and sacrifice their future for our benefit. At the same time, this number should not be much higher. The players’ base salary should be whatever they can get, but they are not responsible for league expenses. Increasing this number will decrease the league’s profitability. Their salaries should not be tied to revenues for this reason, but also on the off-chance popularity will decline, the players should not be punished in the form of decreased revenues. While this number needs to be hammered out, what about guarantees?
The players need more guaranteed money in their contracts. The NFL is the most dangerous sport, as every play someone is getting hit hard (namely the offensive and defensive lines). If a player signs a contract, and then during the preseason gets a serious injury, they should be set. This has not been the case in the NFL, and it needs to change. Will it change with the next CBA, or is a lockout coming?
What if there is a lockout?
The NFL and NFLPA are working to get a new CBA in place. However, according to Ian Rapoport, it is unlikely we will see one this season. While talks are going well, they are not happening fast enough. Assuming he is right and we will have to wait until after the season, that gives both sides on year until the CBA expires. Let’s look at the worst case scenarios, and look at what each side will do in the case of a lockout.
The League
The owners want to avoid a work stoppage more than anything. Fewer games played means less revenue for the owners. If one cannot be avoided, they could take a page out of the league’s playbook in 1987. During the 1987 season, week three was canceled. After this, replacement players and 15% of players who crossed the picket lines (including Joe Montana) played the next three weeks. These replacement players (dubbed “scabs”) were not as good, and the few stars could not elevate the product on the field. This led to a 20% drop in viewership, but still helped the league achieve its goal. After week six, the union voted to end the strike, and the remaining 85% of players returned to work, with their demands unmet. The league does not want this to happen, but would the owners be worse off than their players?
The Players
I’m not talking about the stars. Guys like Tom Brady, Le’Veon Bell, and Julio Jones will be fine. The people who will be most negatively impacted are the backups and rookies. Their contracts are smaller than these stars, and they will need to work. If the league decides to sign “scabs” during a lockout, the pressure for less known players will be much higher. This is who the NFL should target to cross the picket lines, and who will most want to avoid a work stoppage.
Does Anyone Actually Want a Lockout?
Yes, Vince McMahon wants a lockout. This is just what the XFL needs to succeed. This eliminates the XFL’s biggest block to success. Even if the football is subpar, the fans won’t care. Especially if the NFLPA’s biggest fears come true and there is a year long stoppage. By week five of a work stoppage, NFL fans will be looking like Tyronne Biggums, craving any semblance of football.
This serves as a warning to NFL fans. Enjoy this season, it may be the last NFL football we see in a while.
