Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement

CloakNNNdagger said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1230874632678449155
Click to expand...
CloakNNNdagger said:
The players are being given a much better deal than they ever were with the last CBA. Yet there seems to be attempt at derailing final agreement by a number of greedy high profile souls.
Click to expand...

For those at the NFL Fan Forum held here before Superbowl 51, they got to see a pretty good example of this.
The NFL literally lets the attendees ask any question they wanted. By a stroke of supreme luck and good contacts, I was able to attend.

While I didn't ask the best question of the day ( that was - Mr. Goodell, would you have any extra tickets to the Superbowl? He did set her up with tickets!), I asked about the next CBA.

Specifically, I'd asked about whether converting one of more pre-season games into regular season ones was on the table, and in doing so, could we expand rosters and increase gameday actives from 45 to help compensate.

While Goodell said basically that all things were on the table, the three Man-of-the Year finalists all reacted as if this was laughable. To them, it probably was. Olsen, Manning and Fitzgerald weren't in any danger of making an NFL roster, and the less folks on the roster to share cap space certainly works out better for them. It spoke to me of the mindset of the NFL player 1%'ers.
 
Thorn said:
I agree with CnD. Millionaires fighting billionaires is uninteresting and boring. A part of me wants the whole thing to collapse just to watch everyone cry in their wheaties. LOL
Click to expand...

Over 65% of players make less than one million a year.
 
steelbtexan said:
Agreed

But Guaranteed Contracts are what's wrong with professional sports and why I like to watch college sports more than pro sports.
Click to expand...

Owners get guaranteed contracts AND full control of taxpayer financed stadiums.

Everyone likes to point at players and whine about greed when the fat cats owning the franchises take greed to a new level.
 
Double Barrel said:
Owners get guaranteed contracts AND full control of taxpayer financed stadiums.

Everyone likes to point at players and whine about greed when the fat cats owning the franchises take greed to a new level.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that side of the argument also. But like any business, this still boils down to who takes the brunt of the risks, the players or the owners. Throughout the real business world, employees are not expected to take as much of the risks or make as much as their employers. Also as far as the 65% of players that don't make $1 million annually.........most people would be elated to make the ~$500,000 minimum salary per year, even if only for 2-3 years.
 
Per my CDC contact, the Chinese Health Ministry has privately admitted that the source of the virus was not the Wuhan market. This is consistent with the fact that the WHO and CDC has received permission to enter Wuhan......but not test the Wuhan microbiology lab (suspected as a microbiological warefare lab)..........not even for potential breaks in protocol which could have resulted in "accidental" release outside the lab.

As another aside, it appears that so every extra-Chinese case has been traced back to China through first-hand, second-hand or third-hand contact.
 
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger said:
I can appreciate that side of the argument also. But like any business, this still boils down to who takes the brunt of the risks, the players or the owners. Throughout the real business world, employees are not expected to take as much of the risks or make as much as their employers. Also as far as the 65% of players that don't make $1 million annually.........most people would be elated to make the ~$500,000 minimum salary per year, even if only for 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
Well let's not overlook that quite a few of those playing 2-3 seasons do so due to injuries that impact them rest of their lives. Risk involves more than just losing money as a business venture. When was the last time an NFL owner failed In his business of owning a team? All Things Considered I think NFL owners face less risk than most small business owners starting their company. I do appreciate them and all employers offering jobs.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Per my CDC contact, the Chinese Health Ministry has privately admitted that the source of the virus was not the Wuhan market. This is consistent with the fact that the WHO and CDC has received permission to enter Wuhan......but not test the Wuhan microbiology lab (suspected as a microbiological warefare lab)..........not even for potential breaks in protocol which could have resulted in "accidental" release outside the lab.

As another aside, it appears that so every extra-Chinese case has been traced back to China through first-hand, second-hand or third-hand contact.
Click to expand...
Not the correct thread!! LOL it's usually me doing that. Hey Doc seriously thanks for the input I am very interested in this possibility.
 
badboy said:
Well let's not overlook that quite a few of those playing 2-3 seasons do so due to injuries that impact them rest of their lives. Risk involves more than just losing money as a business venture. When was the last time an NFL owner failed In his business of owning a team? All Things Considered I think NFL owners face less risk than most small business owners starting their company. I do appreciate them and all employers offering jobs.
Click to expand...
Certainly understand your point. On the other hand, wealthy owners expect healthy profits for their huge investment..........more than what they could make with other investments, or they would choose the other investment.

But, if as some of the high-profile players have said players should get, profits would go down the tubes. One example is the push for all NFL players to be treated like MLB and NBA players.........getting guaranteed salaries. One small problem.............the roster numbers on an NFL team dwarf those of the MLB and NBA.
 
JB said:
Here's a crazy idea...

I'd like to see it remain a 16 game season with each teams games at least 10 days apart (2 weeks on most weeks), give fans a longer season and players longer time to heal between games. NFLPA should be all for it and the IR list much shorter. Have to remove the blackout rule as well... every game televised nationally. Revenue would actually go up (expenses down?) and fans could watch more games.
Click to expand...
I wish the NFL could offer me PPV on Sunday's. I'll watch my local team then choose what other game I want to watch and pay for it. This NFL Sunday Ticket is freakin highway robbery. Way too much money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
CloakNNNdagger said:
Certainly understand your point. On the other hand, wealthy owners expect healthy profits for their huge investment..........more than what they could make with other investments, or they would choose the other investment.

But, if as some of the high-profile players have said players should get, profits would go down the tubes. One example is the push for all NFL players to be treated like MLB and NBA players.........getting guaranteed salaries. One small problem.............the roster numbers on an NFL team dwarf those of the MLB and NBA.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think neither side want to kill that fabled fowl & the players assoc. sending offer to players for a vote indicates that to me. Check your PMs.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
I can appreciate that side of the argument also. But like any business, this still boils down to who takes the brunt of the risks, the players or the owners. Throughout the real business world, employees are not expected to take as much of the risks or make as much as their employers. Also as far as the 65% of players that don't make $1 million annually.........most people would be elated to make the ~$500,000 minimum salary per year, even if only for 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

But, I would also point out that most business owners neither have the benefit of guaranteed annual profits from television contracts and do not benefit from tax payer financed facilities, nor do they get to have one-way contracts with their employees that they can break without consequence and have anti-trust exemptions from government scrutiny.

I remember when Bob McNair bought the Texans. The articles were very adamant about it being a risk-free investment, and history has clearly supported it. There is very little risk involved with owning an NFL franchise these days. These owners made their fortunes in the real business world, but their NFL franchises operate outside of it.

As far as players making money, we tune in to watch players, not watch Cal McNair or Jerry Jones or any of the other fat cat owners. The players are the product at the end of the day. They deserve their share of the profits.
 
It is still to be determined when the new CBA's anticipated increased salary cap would take effect.........2020 season vs 2021.......2020 being entirely unlikely if the agreement is not signed until after the new League year begins (March 18).
 
Double Barrel said:
Fair enough.

But, I would also point out that most business owners neither have the benefit of guaranteed annual profits from television contracts and do not benefit from tax payer financed facilities, nor do they get to have one-way contracts with their employees that they can break without consequence and have anti-trust exemptions from government scrutiny.

I remember when Bob McNair bought the Texans. The articles were very adamant about it being a risk-free investment, and history has clearly supported it. There is very little risk involved with owning an NFL franchise these days. These owners made their fortunes in the real business world, but their NFL franchises operate outside of it.

As far as players making money, we tune in to watch players, not watch Cal McNair or Jerry Jones or any of the other fat cat owners. The players are the product at the end of the day. They deserve their share of the profits.
Click to expand...
I think it's interesting to note that most all of the more recent contracts have the guaranteed money in the first 2 years of the contract. So when you look at, for example, 4 year contracts (which in the past spread the guaranteed money over 4 years), they are actually 2 year contracts with significant early payoffs. Players agents purposely structure their clients' contracts this way, to afford their players greater financial security............any time beyond is just considered gravy.
 
NFL has the best and most perfect format in all of sports, why you would go ******* with it absolutely blows my ******* mind. Lets water it all down with more regular season games and a 7 team playoff is braindead ******* stupid to me, might as well just go to 8 per conference that way half the ******* league makes the playoffs every year. What a joke. Not a fan of this AT ALL!!!
 
Double Barrel said:
Fair enough.

But, I would also point out that most business owners neither have the benefit of guaranteed annual profits from television contracts and do not benefit from tax payer financed facilities, nor do they get to have one-way contracts with their employees that they can break without consequence and have anti-trust exemptions from government scrutiny.

I remember when Bob McNair bought the Texans. The articles were very adamant about it being a risk-free investment, and history has clearly supported it. There is very little risk involved with owning an NFL franchise these days. These owners made their fortunes in the real business world, but their NFL franchises operate outside of it.

As far as players making money, we tune in to watch players, not watch Cal McNair or Jerry Jones or any of the other fat cat owners. The players are the product at the end of the day. They deserve their share of the profits.
Click to expand...

How much of the profit? Right now I think 48% is what the players will get in the new CBA. That's very much a partnership IMHO.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
It is still to be determined when the new CBA's anticipated increased salary cap would take effect.........2020 season vs 2021.......2020 being entirely unlikely if the agreement is not signed until after the new League year begins (March 18).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info

I will bet you the new CBA gets done before March 18th.
 
ShinobiMusashi said:
NFL has the best and most perfect format in all of sports, why you would go ******* with it absolutely blows my ******* mind. Lets water it all down with more regular season games and a 7 team playoff is braindead ******* stupid to me, might as well just go to 8 per conference that way half the ******* league makes the playoffs every year. What a joke. Not a fan of this AT ALL!!!
Click to expand...

It comes down to $$$$.

As a season ticketholder, I would rather pay for 3 preseason games and get a 17th game rather than have to pay full price for the glorified scrimmage that's the 4th preseason game. Also I hope they add a 2nd bye week so the SB will be played on the Sunday Presidents Day. What I really wish would happen is the SB would be played on Saturday night.

Since everything has changed in God'ells NFL. Splitting up the draft moving the draft/Thursday Night Football/They're talking about moving the Combine around to different cities/NFL games in Europe etc... surely they could move the SB to Saturday night to make the game more enjoyable for the Fans. Sadly God'ell/Owners could care less about the fans wishes.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
It is still to be determined when the new CBA's anticipated increased salary cap would take effect.........2020 season vs 2021.......2020 being entirely unlikely if the agreement is not signed until after the new League year begins (March 18).
Click to expand...
how possible is it that the NFL does a guesstimate for 2020 that can be adjusted as the season continues. For example giving them an extra 20 million for this season that can be adjusted in 2021.
 
ShinobiMusashi said:
NFL has the best and most perfect format in all of sports, why you would go ******* with it absolutely blows my ******* mind. Lets water it all down with more regular season games and a 7 team playoff is braindead ******* stupid to me, might as well just go to 8 per conference that way half the ******* league makes the playoffs every year. What a joke. Not a fan of this AT ALL!!!
Click to expand...
It gets better due to mo' money!!! Doesn't matter what you and I are in favor of.texanpride
 
steelbtexan said:
It comes down to $$$$.

As a season ticketholder, I would rather pay for 3 preseason games and get a 17th game rather than have to pay full price for the glorified scrimmage that's the 4th preseason game. Also I hope they add a 2nd bye week so the SB will be played on the Sunday Presidents Day. What I really wish would happen is the SB would be played on Saturday night.

Since everything has changed in God'ells NFL. Splitting up the draft moving the draft/Thursday Night Football/They're talking about moving the Combine around to different cities/NFL games in Europe etc... surely they could move the SB to Saturday night to make the game more enjoyable for the Fans. Sadly God'ell/Owners could care less about the fans wishes.
Click to expand...
No! My pastor shortens his sermon for SB Sunday!
 
badboy said:
how possible is it that the NFL does a guesstimate for 2020 that can be adjusted as the season continues. For example giving them an extra 20 million for this season that can be adjusted in 2021.
Click to expand...
This would be difficult to do for a player that believes that a new CBA will not be passed soon and feels they need to sign a new contract shortly after March 18. Those players' negotiations will have already probably been compromised more that what a universal adjusted increase would bring them. How are those players treated, as compared to those who have not yet signed a new contract for 2020? This truly becomes complicated.
 
The Inequities of the Proposed CBA
Our former team exec and former (and current) player agent outlines the problems he sees in the proposed CBA, especially as the players give in to a 17th game with little coming back in return.
ANDREW BRANDTMAR 3, 2020

As the NFL and NFLPA teeter on the precipice of a decade-long Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), I have shared my opinion of the proposed deal through various forums, and will now do so here. My goal is not to criticize or disparage either side of the negotiation, nor to serve either of their agendas. Indeed, both sides have appealed to me to frame the deal in a more positive light, a true sign that the NFL knows they are getting a good deal.

Using my perspective as a former (and current) agent, vice president of the Packers for a decade, an analyst on the business of football and a professor of sports law, I can hopefully provide truly unique insight on this proposed 11-year deal with some depth and nuance, devoid of “hot takes.” It is too simple to call out “winners and losers” from this proposed deal. Rather, I call out the inequities in the deal from the Players side, inequities that could be remedied without significant pain from the Owners side.

As of this writing, the 11-member NFLPA Executive Council, charged with steering the union, has been against the proposed deal by both a 6-5 and a 7-4 vote. As for the 32 player representatives from each team, their vote swung mildly in favor of the deal with a 17-14 vote (with one abstention). Now the proposed deal goes to the full population of 1900 or so NFL players, with a simple majority enough for ratification. Under any analysis, the NFLPA leadership is hardly giving this proposed CBA a ringing endorsement. And with good reason.

THE REST OF THE STORY
 
The players are flipping out about this 17th game thing & its not really that serious. We know why the owners want it in & its a faulty premise on their part. The owners assume that b/c its a regular season game, the product will be of regular season quality; i.e. the starters will play in it and technically that doesn't necessarily have to happen. But the players already play 20 total games during the season (16 regular + 4 preseason) anyway. So what are the players really losing in adding this 17th regular season game? nothing. In that regard, players should just take a page out of the NBA players' playbook & start up with the load management thing to ensure that their best guys (starters basically) only play in 16 regular season games.....even though 17 count. They'd need a few progressive & winning HC's to get on board with it to show that it can work, but it could actually work more in the players & HC's favor in the long run.

Got that 2-6 Bengals team coming in this week? let me sit my star defensive players & really get a good look at my depth guys.
Key starters still beat up from that physical Sunday game before the upcoming Thursday night game? Let my starters dress, but sit them & start their back ups.

I think it would introduce even more strategy to how coaches manage the season and their own rosters & I think you'd see less situations where a guy feels pressured to come back at 85% of himself & instead see him more inclined to take that 1 extra week to get to 95 -100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
If I'm reading this correctly, I think owners willing to give up substantially more to get that extra game. Playing it like they will stand strong then give up more like fewer off season stuff and more cash. Personally I'd offer more to retired guys as it would be huge PR that players couldn't afford to ignore. I think it is getting done.
 
I personally hope players are willing to bunker down as much as it takes to keep the regular- and post-season formats as is for as long as imaginable..
 
Mollywhopper said:
I personally hope players are willing to bunker down as much as it takes to keep the regular- and post-season formats as is for as long as imaginable..
Click to expand...
There WILL be a 17 game season.................the owners have already compromised by extending the possible institution of the plan to as far off as 2023................the 17 game season is a given.
 
Mr teX said:
Got that 2-6 Bengals team coming in this week? let me sit my star defensive players & really get a good look at my depth guys.
Click to expand...

Except that's not how it works in the real world. In the NBA where they play 82 games maybe, but in a 16-17 game NFL season where those games matter a whole hella lot more because it's ONLY 16-17 games, and the Cleveland Browns can beat the Ravens with all their top players playing on any given week, not so much.
 
Speedy said:
Except that's not how it works in the real world. In the NBA where they play 82 games maybe, but in a 16-17 game NFL season where those games matter a whole hella lot more because it's ONLY 16-17 games, and the Cleveland Browns can beat the Ravens with all their top players playing on any given week, not so much.
Click to expand...

Same tired argument college football “purists” tried to use to argue against the playoff. 5 years later 1 and even a few 2 loss teams are still making the playoff. And I got news for you, what you’re talking about still happens even with the starters playing. Every team in the league usually has that 1 game that they lose that they should win every year.
 
Lawyers for the NFL and NFLPA finalized language on a new CBA at 2:30 a.m. last night. It will go out to players this morning, union will issue a statement shortly.

I'm told the deadline for votes will be Thursday, March 12, at 11:59 p.m. So we'll know next week.
***
https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/1235567604447744000
***
So the Is are dotted and Ts are crossed so all that's needed is the signature of a simple majority of the NFLPA (owners have already signed).
Looking good !
 
The new CBA being voted on (voting by the NFLPA has just begun) will remove ALL suspensions for all substance abuse violations................there will only be fines assessed.

I don't see this ending well.
 
Looks like Stills has found another issue to be a dissenting voice.

*****************************************************

NFLPA vote is, at its core, a referendum on the judgment of DeMaurice Smith
March 5, 2020, 5:29 PM EST

In a one-hour interview with NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, the full audio of which can be heard below, Smith addresses at length the proposed CBA — from the inception of the discussions to the negotiation process to his response to the various criticisms of the deal.

Along the way, Smith said that he’s “proud of the deal.” And while he’d later add that he won’t be making a specific recommendation to the rank and file as to whether they should vote for it, it’s clear from the conversation that Smith believes the CBA represents the best combination of size of slice (as to the NFL) and size of pie (as to total revenue, including most notably the TV deals) that could be negotiated.

Smith explanation of the CBA comes as the voting window has opened — and as plenty of players with name recognition (but not necessarily much of a role in the process of negotiating the deal) are speaking out against it. In a video posted on Thursday, for example, Texans receiver Kenny Stills makes it clear that he doesn’t share Smith’s pride in the package the players are considering.

Stills, who is not involved in union leadership, encouraged players to vote no, repeating vows made by other players to help younger players pay the bills during a work stoppage.

“We run the show,” Still says. “We run this league. . . . There is no league without the players. . . . Please vote no on this deal, and let’s get some people outside of the NFL’s web to negotiate a real deal for us. Something that we’re proud of. Something that will set up the next generation. And that’ll change the landscape of the NFL forever.”

The Rest of the Story
 
An interesting but entirely unfounded player complaint...............they claim they have no early opt out.

*****************************************************************

Of the various criticisms of the new CBA, one of the more popular goes like this: The deal doesn’t allow for the players to opt out early. DeMaurice Smith of the NFL Players Association has a simple response to that critique: The deal doesn’t allow the owners to opt out early, either.

During a one-hour interview with #PFTPM regarding the labor deal on which players currently may vote, Smith pointed out that the 2006 CBA had a mutual opt out, and the owners did just that at their first opportunity. He also suggested that, if the owners had the power to opt out during the current CBA, they would have during the downturn in the ratings that happened in 2016 and 2017.

With all the talk about how the proposed CBA provides the NFL with “cost certainty,” it also provides the players with revenue certainty. As the pie grows, the players’ slice of it grows, too. And the owners are stuck with that, no matter now big, or small, the total pie becomes.

Despite the inherently tense relationship between management and labor, the more the league and its players behave as partners, the better off they and the game will be. This deal arguably moves them closer to a true partnership than they’ve ever had. That reality (we’re told) has been difficult for some owners to accept; they’d prefer to squeeze the players into submission, and to continue to treat them as employees.

LINK
 
Let's stop with the BS. The only one's getting screwed by any NFL and NFLPA CBA are the fans, so both sides need to yank up their bloomers and press hard - five copies. Let's get this season started b/c we the fans haven't gotten tired of getting screwed....lucky for the NFL and NFLPA.
 
Last edited:
New CBA doesn’t diminish Commissioner’s ultimate power over Personal Conduct Policy cases
March 6, 2020, 1:03 PM EST

The Commissioner’s power under the new CBA is shrinking. Unless it isn’t.

The proposed CBA definitely changes the Commissioner’s authority over the Personal Conduct Policy. But he still retains final say over the process, including the ability to both reduce and to enhance the punishment implemented by the neutral party that will make the initial decisions.

The CBA creates a “Disciplinary Officer” position for the initial decisions. Those decisions are then subject to appeal to the Commissioner, and either side may appeal the Disciplinary Officer’s final rulings.

That’s a dramatic change to the current procedure, which involves appeals to the Commissioner of decisions made by the Commissioner. Because the Commissioner would never be appealing his own decision, no appeal would ever result in a player getting a greater suspension than the suspension based on the initial decision. Under the new CBA, the league has the right to appeal the decision of the Disciplinary Officer to the Commissioner, who can (based on the record presented to the Disciplinary Officer) impose greater discipline than the discipline imposed by the Disciplinary Officer.

In other words, the Commissioner still has final say, given that the Commissioner has the power to go farther than the Disciplinary Officer went. So the alteration to the process is basically window dressing.

It would have made much more sense to flip it around, with the Commissioner making the initial decision and the appeal being handled by an independent decision-maker. But that’s not what happened. So the changes to the Personal Conduct Policy’s appeal process really doesn’t change much of anything.
 
King Rog ain't one to give up power.

He's still going to be able to see teams/players over at his whims.

StatCaps/Bountygate/Spygate/deflategate etc ..

With no proof and more importantly impose whatever penalty he chooses with no recourse.
 
If the NFLPA does not ratify the new CBA, and if the League goes ahead and negotiates and finalizes new TV contracts...........you can be sure that although the contracts will be significantly less than if the NFLPA signed the CBA............the League will make up for much of the loss by cutting the players' share when the new CBA is signed sealed and delivered.

********************************************************************************************

NFL may move forward on new TV deals without labor peace
March 8, 2020, 9:36 AM EDT

If the players who currently are voting on a new CBA ultimately vote no, some believe that the league will wait to finalize new TV contracts until the situation is resolved, whether later this year (if the league is bluffing), early next year (if the league isn’t bluffing), later next year (if there’s a lockout), or at some point after that. The truth may be that the league will still negotiate new TV deals, taking less money than the league could get with a decade of labor peace in its hip pocket.

“There isn’t anything that prevents the league from going forward and getting TV contracts without a Collective Bargaining Agreement,” NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith told #PFTPM on Thursday. “I think if they have to go and get those TV deals without long-term labor peace, it is commonsense that those TV deals will be less than if they were negotiated with 10 years of labor peace. And if those contracts are indeed less, that’s a smaller pie. And if the league has to take a smaller pie, why wouldn’t they come back to the players next year and say, ‘There is a smaller pie available, therefore we won’t agree to a larger slice of a smaller pie’?”

And that approach could be the most likely, given that the networks currently seem to be ready to secure long-term contracts with the NFL, with or without the promise of labor peace. With rumors rampant that one or more networks that, if the CBA passes, one or more networks will finalize long-term deals promptly (a massive ESPN/ABC deal gets mentioned most frequently, given that the Monday Night Football deal expires after 2021, not 2022), Smith was asked this specific question: “Do you know whether or not the league is ready to move on one or more of these deals? That basically they’ve got one or more networks lined up, ready to make the investment, ready to commit to some gigantic checks, and they just want to get this deal done so they can close those TV deals?”

“The league doesn’t exactly invite me into those meetings, I’m sure that comes as a shock to you,” Smith initially said, creating the impression that he knows as much as the rest of this. And then he added this: “But it also shouldn’t come as a shock to anybody that I’ve met with all the networks over the last two years, so why don’t I just leave it at that?”
THE REST OF THE STORY
 
Our established favorite "elite" players in their loud opposition, as opposed to how they are trying to present themselves, do not seem to have the practical interests of the "core" players at heart...........there is apparently a great deal of selfish going around instead.

**************************************************************************************

Some NFLPA members have sharply different interests
Posted by Mike Florio on March 8, 2020, 11:36 AM EDT

Most unions consist of employees whose interests are aligned on nearly every issue. The NFL Players Association does not.

First, the position a player plays will strongly influence his views on work rules. Many players who face the most contact naturally won’t want to play 17 games, obviously. Some players who face the least amount of hitting (kickers, punters, snappers) naturally would be inclined to play as many as 20 or 30 games, if they in turn will get that many game checks.

Second, beyond the position that a player plays is the question of his job security. Every team has 53 players on the roster, along with 10 members of the practice squad. Of those 63 men, 20 at most know in any given year that they’ll definitely have jobs in the next season. For the other 43, concerns over playing in 17 games take a backseat to concerns over playing in one game.

Those 43 players per team won’t be playing for 10 years or longer, and they definitely won’t be signing a truly life-changing contract at any point in their careers. Maybe they’ll hang around for a total of three or four seasons, hovering far closer to the minimum than the maximum throughout their tenure in the league.

So with CBA voting open, who’s objecting to the deal the loudest? In nearly every case, it’s one of the 20 not one of the 43. That’s why many believe there’s a silent majority of players who have no reason to publicize their positions and who will vote overwhelmingly for the CBA.

Consider the comments from Giants tackle Nate Solder, who has consistently been among the 20 and who has cashed in with a market-value deal early in free agency.
THE REST OF THE STORY
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top