|03-02-2006, 04:03 PM||#1|
Join Date: Jan 2006
I was wondering what prevents the owners from not having any deal with the players and agreeing to their own salary cap? Is there anything illegal about agreeing to cap wages? I don't think it is similar to price fixing. I feel like the owners have all the power and that even if the league striked, they could use replacement players, we'd win another championship, and in the end the union would crack if not break.
|03-02-2006, 04:53 PM||#2|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Re: CBA Question
if a club independently sets its maximum spending limit that's fine... i don't think you'll get danny or JJ to agree to a cap of any kind though.
the worry isn't about finding scabs for the owners, its about the paradigm shift the nfl (and its profitability) would take under anti-trust scrutiny (the nfl's track record in court isn't very good). And the loss of long term tv money that may occur (among other things) when the talent division in the league radically changes.
unstable or unpredictable business makes long term planning impossible, and the players hope the owners (generally more enthused with a stable business model that they can leverage for loans and other investments) give in first.
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
|03-03-2006, 12:29 PM||#3|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DC area
Re: CBA Question
What That Guy said! (Note that Baseball escapes this because Congress declared them a legal monopoly.)
I suspect that the lack of a labor agreement would hurt players as much as the owners. For one thing, I expect that stars would suck up all the big bucks and leave less salary room than today for role players and benchwarmers who make up most of a roster. Retirement and health benefits, discipline policy (think TO) are affected. For all the news about drug suspensions, the labor agreement builds in some protections for players so that they may continue their career in spite of three, four, multiple violations of the drug policy. And on it goes.
Players may lose as much as the owners without an agreement. Negotiating leveragewill be severly weakened without union backing (the union is threatening to decertify). So, this isn't just a question of who cracks first. Both sides prosper with an agreement. I'm not sure who's being the dick here.
Gawd, I miss Pete Rozelle!