The NFL’s Looming Lockout

Joe McDaniel

Professor Hall

English 208

18 November 2010

                                                 The NFL’s Looming Lockout

                There is something that plays an important role in millions of Americans lives for six months year after year. It also plays a huge role year round in many businesses all across America. Last year alone, 106 million people chose to expose themselves to this on just a single day in February (Gop, By Alaska). Even though it plays a huge role in millions of Americans lives and businesses, this time next year it may not be around. This thing I am talking about the National Football League, or the NFL. How is something that plays such a big role in a lot of Americans lives and businesses in danger of not being played next year? In an effort to try and figure out the problem and a solution for it, I found that there are a couple problems that need a couple different solutions.

                The NFL may not have a 2011 season because the current collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2010 season (NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement Explained). If a new collective bargaining agreement is not agreed upon before the start of the 2011 season that starts in September a lockout will inevitably happen, thus no football will be played next year, or any other year until a new collective bargaining agreement is agreed upon. There are two sides to this that are currently in negotiations in an effort to come to an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement. These two sides are the NFL owners and the NFL Players Association. These two sides cannot come to terms on a couple key issues that if they cannot come to an agreement the NFL will lockout all players belonging to the NFL Players Association. This includes every NFL player that is signed to any NFL team. That is not to say that the league will shut down all together. It means that nobody that is in the NFL Players Associations will be allowed to take the field. The movie, The Replacements, depicts this situation well. In this movie there is a lockout that shuts down the league for any players that belong to the NFL Players Association, but anyone that does not belong to the NFL Players Association or anyone that chooses to cross the line is allowed to play. League commissioner Rodger Goodell has said that a, “Replacements” scenario will not happen, but rather the league will shut down all together until a new agree can be met (Vacchiano, Ralph). But, the two sides have been working for years to come to a new agreement and still have not came to one. So what is at the center of these debates?

                The two sides cannot come to an agreement on three issues. These issues are that the owners want to expand the season from a sixteen game regular season with four preseason games to an eighteen game regular season with two preseason games, a rookie wage scale, and increased drug testing (DeVault, Christopher). These three issues all require the NFL Players Association to give up something while the owners do nothing but gain from it. This is why they are having so much trouble in trying to come to an agreement on these three things. But, I believe a solution is still possible, after all, neither side really wants a work stoppage next year as it would hurt both sides. If these issues are not agreed upon, I believe they could have a negative effect not only in individual American lives, but businesses and therefore the already unstable American economy.

There is no doubt that the NFL and its teams play at least a small role in the economics of the cities in which they play and on a bigger scale, the entire American economy. But just how big is the role the NFL plays in these economies? One person that believes an NFL lockout would be “disastrous” for the states and regions in which the teams are located is Massachusetts State Representative, Cristine E. Canavan. In a letter to Robert Kraft, owner of an NFL team named the New England Patriots, Canavan expresses her concerns for the economic impact of an NFL lockout in Massachusetts. In a passage from Canavan’s letter to Kraft she wrote, “Those fans who visit Gillette Stadium (the stadium where the Patriots play) to support the Patriots also provides a tremendous boost to the local and state economy. It is estimated that the Patriots directly and indirectly generate nearly 2,500 jobs, million in revenue for local businesses, and more than million in badly needed income tax revenue. At a time when we’ve been working hard to bring Massachusetts out of the recession and put us back on a track toward prosperity, losing so many jobs and so much revenue could have disastrous consequences for the region (Canavan).”  Clearly, a lockout in this region would have devastating effects on the economy for the state of Massachusetts, as well as the region surrounding it.

This is not just applicable for this region, but regions across America where NFL teams play. Another example of a region that would be devastated is Indianapolis. The city was awarded the rights to have the 2012 Super Bowl played at their home stadium. Significant time and money has been invested, and numerous jobs have been created to meet the demand of the historic event. Ball State University’s Bureau of Business Research has estimated that the Super Bowl could deliver an economic boost of more than 0 million, create about 5,000 jobs, and bring in more than million in tax revenue(NFL Lockout Would Be Disastrous for Colts, City). With the current state of the America economy, losing that kind of revenue and job creation after the city has already sunken large amounts of money into preparation for the Super Bowl, it would be a huge blow to the city of Indianapolis. While the Massachusetts region and the city of Indianapolis are just two areas that will be affected, the same is true with virtually every one of the region’s the thirty-two NFL teams play in. Thus, making it a national issue since NFL teams play in regions across America.

        Obviously, if the NFL has a lockout, it will have devastating effects on the economies in the regions in which the NFL teams play. A solution must be found, and I think a solution is possible. As I already stated, the three issues at the root of the disagreements are the expansion of the NFL regular season schedule, a rookie wage scale, and increased drug testing. With a little give and take from the two sides, I think these three issues can be resolved. I will now offer my proposal for how to come to an agreement.

      The first issue I will propose a solution for is the expansion of the NFL regular season. NFL owners want to expand the season for one reason. This reason is for increased revenue. Having extra games played at your home arena will provide a significant increase in revenues from everything from tickets, to concession food. The primary reasons the NFL Players Association is against this is player safety, and fair compensation. If they play more games, there is a higher chance of injury. To me, a solution is very achievable. Since safety is one of the things keeping the NFL Players Association from agreeing to the schedule change, the NFL owners need to add things that could protect the players from injury. I would propose that if the NFL schedule is expanded, there would need to be less offseason workouts. This would keep players fresher for the extra two games at the end of the year, making injury less likely. Another thing that I think would need to be agreed upon would be an expansion of NFL team’s rosters. Regardless of what precautions the NFL takes to keep players from getting injured, injuries still will happen. With more games, there will surely be more injuries throughout the course of the season. Expanding the number of players NFL teams can have on their rosters would help them be more prepared to find a replacement if an injury does occur. This would cost the owners money because they would have to pay the extra players salaries. But, with the increased revenue the owners would get from the expansion of the regular season, they would still be making more money. While I believe this proposal would solve the safety issues related with expanding the NFL regular season, there is still the issue of fair compensation.

Every NFL player’s contract is based off of a sixteen game regular season. So, NFL players who are currently under contract, and getting paid a set amount, for a set number of years, agreed to the terms of the contract based on a sixteen game season. They do not want to add two more games to the schedule, while getting paid the same amount they were to play the sixteen games. While this does create a problem, I believe a solution can be found. I propose that player’s contracts are prorated for the extra two games until the contracts expire. For example, if a player is getting paid one million dollars per season for five seasons, they are actually making ,500 per game. With the extra two games added onto the schedule, you would just add the ,500 per game twice, since you are adding two games to the schedule, coming to a total of an extra 5,000 per season. This could be done with every player’s contracts until they expire. Upon expiration, new contracts could be agreed upon based on the new eighteen game regular season. Again, this would require the NFL owners to spend more money on the players. But in the long run, they would still be making more money because of the increase in revenue from having more games played. In my opinion, this would be a fair compromise for both sides. The NFL owners would be getting the eighteen game schedule they want, while the NFL Players Association would get fair compensation for the extra two games, as well as more precautions for injuries.

The second issue that needs to be resolved is the rookie wage scale. The NFL Players Association is against this because it does nothing but hurt the players. It would require all rookies to receive less pay. The NFL owners want a rookie wage scale to protect them from poor investments in rookies that do not work out. It would also protect the NFL owners from having to give huge amounts of money to a rookie who, once he gets paid lose their motivation to excel at football. Take for instance, the Oakland Raiders signing of Jamarcus Russell. His contract included million in guaranteed money, plus many bonuses (Pasquarelli, By Len). He went on to start twenty-nine of a possible forty-eight games in three seasons. Russell played so poorly, the Oakland Raiders cut their losses and released him from their team before the 2010 season. He has yet to resign with another team in 2010, and has no prospective teams anywhere in the future (JaMarcus Russell Game Log). This is just one example of a rookie who was paid a huge amount of money, whom did not work out, thus, the team took a huge financial hit. Both sides have valid arguments as to why they want, or do not want this to happen. To me, a solution is still possible. I would propose a rookie wage scale be enacted, but offer a lot more bonuses within the contract to where if a rookie performs well on the field, they will earn more money. This would give the NFL rookies a chance to earn a lot of money, but only if they perform. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of NFL rookies lose the motivation to perform once they get paid. Having bonuses within their contract would keep them motivated to perform as well as they can, so they can earn more money. This would also protect the NFL owners from bad investments. If a player does not work out, they will not lose as much as they have in the past with players like Jamarcus Russell. But, if a player does end up playing well, they will have to pay them a higher wage. This could be a problem for the owners, but having a rookie play well will also bring in more money for the owners. I say this because more fans will want to come see the new rookie play or maybe even buy a jersey from the stadiums apparel store, thus increasing profits for the NFL owners. This would provide a solution for the rookie wage scale, but there is one more issue that needs to be resolved.

The final issue in need of a resolution is increased drug testing. The NFL owners want to increase drug testing because they want to make sure there are no players in the league that have a competitive advantage over other players as a result from steroids or any other performance enhancing drug. The NFL Players Association does not want increased drug testing because they feel it invades the player’s personal privacy. Both sides have valid points, but like the other two issues, I believe a fair resolution is possible. Since the NFL Players Association does not want to increase drug testing because they feel it invades the player’s personal privacy, I propose that they increase drug testing, but schedule all tests so each player knows when they are going to be tested. I would also propose that these tests be frequent enough so players could not take illegal drugs, and then stop taking them in time to pass the scheduled drug tests. I believe both sides would agree to this. The NFL owners would benefit in getting what they want, increased drug testing. And the NFL Players Association would get what they want because these drug tests would be scheduled, so player’s personal privacy would not be invaded as it would if the drug tests were unannounced and random. I believe these are fair proposals for each of the three issues keeping a new collective bargaining agreement from happening.

There are three other actions that could be done to try and find a solution to this problem. But, all three of these actions would result in an NFL lockout. One action would be to do nothing, which would result in both sides being unhappy and a lockout to occur. The second action is for the owners to try and get everything they want from negotiations. Again, this would result in a lockout, as the NFL Players Association would not agree to a new collective bargaining agreement. The final action that could be taken is the opposite of number two. The NFL Players Association could try and get everything they want from negotiations. Again, this would result in an inevitable lockout. My proposal is very possible and should be enacted. In my proposal, both sides get a little, as well as concede a little. No side is a big winner or big loser. To me, this is the only way to come to an agreement; both sides have to meet in the middle. As I stated earlier, if both sides are not able to meet in the middle, the consequences could be even bigger then people think. 

In closing, my proposal would bring a resolution to the disagreement between the NFL owners and the NFL Players Association. Some may think there is not a lot they can do to try and help. But, I believe if NFL fans begin to speak up, writing to NFL owners and other influential people involved in this negotiation process, it could have a positive effect. The two sides get caught up in the disagreement at hand, and forget about the people who basically fund the entire NFL, the fans. To me, if you remind these people how much the fans enjoy watching football, they may be able to see the bigger picture and come to an agreement.

“This paper constitutes only my thinking and my ideas. Where I have used any other materials, I have clearly identified and attributed them.”

                                                             Works Cited

“Canavan: Possible 2011 NFL Lockout Would Be ‘disastrous’ for State, Regional Economy.” State Representative Christine Canavan. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

DeVault, Christopher. “NFL Lockout Looms for 2011 Season.” Associated Content from Yahoo! – Associatedcontent.com. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

Gop, By Alaska. “Super Bowl 2010 Ratings: 106 Million Watch, Top-Rated Telecast EVER.” Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

“JaMarcus Russell Game Log – Oakland Raiders – ESPN.” ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

“NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement Explained – NFL – SI.com.” Breaking News, Real-time Scores and Daily Analysis from Sports Illustrated SI.com. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

“NFL Lockout Would Be Disaster for Colts, City « Taylor-Made Tirade.” Taylor-Made Tirade. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

Pasquarelli, By Len. “Sources: Raiders Reach Agreement in Principle with Top Pick Russell – NFL – ESPN.” ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

Vacchiano, Ralph. “NFL Owners, Roger Goodell Say Negotiating a New CBA Agreement by End of Season Is Realistic.” New York News, Traffic, Sports, Weather, Photos, Entertainment, and Gossip – NY Daily News. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .

Wilner, By Barry. “AP Source: NFLPA Details Counter Proposal – Yahoo! News.” The Top News Headlines on Current Events from Yahoo! News. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. .