Collective Bargaining Agreement News & Rumors

The NFL Players Association will huddle up in Los Angeles on Thursday to discuss the owners’ latest proposal, as Dan Graziano of ESPN.com writes. The players are not expected to vote on the proposal, however, as many in the union are still against the idea of a 17-game season.

The owners are looking for an answer by the start of the new league year, on March 18th. If there’s no deal by that date, Graziano hears that talks are “likely to be tabled indefinitely.” That may, or may not, be a real deadline. In reality, neither side wants to chance the possibility of a labor stoppage when the current collective bargaining agreement lapses.

When the CBA does finally come to a vote, it will begin with the union’s 32 player representatives. With two-thirds approval, it would move to a union-wide vote among all players. After that, if 50% of players and two-thirds of owners say yes, it’s a done deal.

The owners’ latest pitch would establish a new ten-year CBA and increase the players’ cut of revenue from 47% to 48.5%. If an extra regular season game is tacked on starting in 2021, that percentage would increase for players. In the owners’ proposed CBA, they’d have the option to expand the season anywhere between 2021 and 2023.

Many players – including vocal figures like offensive tackle Russell Okung – have been against the addition of another game for safety reasons. At one point, the proposed 17-game season was set to include an extra bye week for recovery – at last check, the owners were looking to have just one bye week per year while dropping one of the league’s four preseason games. Meanwhile, the postseason would expand from 12 teams to 14.

The owners’ proposed CBA would have upsides for players, however – one source tells ESPN that the uptick in revenue could result in an additional $5 billion paid to players over the course of ten years. It also includes relaxed rules regarding marijuana, higher minimum spending floors for clubs, and other perks that the union has been seeking.

Feb 5: All 32 player reps will meet Thursday to further consider the proposed CBA, per Maske (via Twitter). Reiterating his report from February 2, Maske says that a vote is possible, but not definite.

Feb 2: ESPN’s Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter report that the NFLPA will convene again after the Super Bowl to vote on the 17-game schedule. They describe the vote as a “make-or-break” development for the new CBA, because the league owners want to get something done asap and are prepared to table their proposal and play out the 2020 season without a new deal in place, which would dramatically heighten the possibility of a work stoppage in 2021.

Because the negotiations to date have been based on a 17-game schedule, Mike Florio of Pro Football suggests that it may be too late for the players to back out of that plan unless they are prepared for a stoppage. But Mortensen and Schefter note that the owners are willing to make a number of concessions — including changes to the drug policy, on-field discipline fine schedule, and greater cash spending minimums for teams — and the players may be warming to the 17-game plan.

A longer season would likely commence in 2021, though an increased revenue share for the players would kick in immediately.

Meanwhile, Mark Maske of the Washington Post says it’s not certain a vote will take place in the coming days. But if it does, and if two-thirds of player reps approve the 17-game CBA, it will go to all players for a ratification vote (Twitter links).

Feb 1: Updates on the status of the collective bargaining agreement continue to emerge. Here are the latest details coming out of the Miami-based discussions:

• Like the CBA the 2011 talks produced, this next one would run for 10 years, Judy Battista of NFL.com tweets. However, the next agreement would run through the 2030 season — even if it is agreed to before the 2020 slate. Some of the benefits agreed to in this deal, though, would start immediately, per Battista. The current CBA expires in March 2021.
• Shifting to the main talking point of these CBA discussions, the potential debut of a 17-game season continues to be delayed. After a report pointed to the expanded schedule moving back to at least 2021, Ian Rapoport of NFL.com notes that the likely start date of a 17-game schedule would be 2022 (video link). This would be aimed at coinciding with the new TV deals, per Rapoport. Most of the league’s TV contracts run through 2022. The CBA also may not mandate a start time for the 17-game slate, with Jeremy Fowler and Dan Graziano of ESPN.com relaying that the owners’ latest proposal gives the NFL the option of pushing the schedule to 17 games at some point over the life of the deal. This would then become a bargaining chip for the league with networks.
• Concern has, however, emerged on both sides that the 17-game component to these talks could nix a near-future deal, per Graziano and Fowler. Many players have spoken out against the 17-game season, which would be even less appealing for the players now that the once-rumored double-bye format is not believed to be a part of the new setup. Russell Okung‘s potential election as the next NFLPA president in March would stand to further waylay a 17-game season, as the Chargers offensive lineman is against lengthening the season.
• Another aspect of these talks: the funding rule. Owners have used the decades-old rule — which stipulates teams must put guaranteed money in a league escrow account upon authorizing a contract — as a reason to limit guarantees. But with this rule implemented in a different era, when some of the league’s teams were not nearly as financially stable as they are today, players are aiming to remove it in the next CBA.

Rory Parks contributed to this post.

The post-June 1 designation is a key tool for NFL teams in the offseason. In short: it enables teams to spread out the dead money cap hit that comes with releasing a player and divvies it up across two years, instead of one.

[RELATED: NFL, NFLPA Discussing 17-Game Season With One Bye Week]

As Joel Corry of CBSSports.com notes, that option won’t be available for teams this offseason, because that provision is not included in this tenth and final year of the current collective bargaining agreement. So, unless the NFL and NFLPA quickly agree to a new CBA, teams won’t be able to kick the can down the road when they release veterans.

The lack of a post-June 1 cut will be felt by every team in the league and could impact the futures of many notable players. Corry points to Eagles wide receiver Alshon Jeffery as a prime example – under the post-June 1 rules, the $26.1MM in dead money that would result from a Jeffery release could be split between the 2020 and 2021 cap. Without that luxury, the Eagles would have to eat all of that dead money this year. So, unless the Eagles are extraordinarily desperate to get rid of Jeffery, they’re unlikely to cut him.

At this time, it sounds like the two sides have a long way to go before they can hash out a new CBA. Currently, they’re discussing an expanded 17-game season that would still only include one bye week. That probably won’t sit well with many of the players, even if the owners agree to give a larger share of revenue.

The prospect of a 17-game season remains at the center of CBA talks between the NFL and the NFLPA. However, the expanded regular season might not include two bye weeks, Albert Breer of The MMQB tweets.

[RELATED: Okung To Run For NFLPA President]

Nothing is finalized – or even close to it – but Breer hears that the 17-game season being discussed would include a three-game preseason, a lighter load in training camp, a revamped offseason calendar, and still only one bye week per team. It’s a departure from the last update we heard: the two sides were reportedly mulling an extra bye to offset the extra wear-and-tear on players.

With an odd number of games, the additional contest would likely occur on a neutral site. It remains to be seen how the league would organize the new schedule, or whether the extra game would be inter- or intra-conference. For what it’s worth, the owners seem confident that the 17th game will happen.

The expanded season is just one of many issues at stake in the new CBA. Players want at least 48% of the revenue and the owners’ latest offer pushed the split close to that threshold. In order to get a bigger piece of the pie, the players will likely have to agree to the extra game or play hardball. Some figures in the union, like NFLPA presidential candidate and veteran offensive lineman Russell Okung, are in favor of Option B.

“Are we in an equitable agreement with management?” Okung said. “Right now, the answer is no. This will take as long as it needs to…I expect more, and I’m not willing to be bashful about saying that. I’ve made it really clear we need to exhaust every single opportunity we have in order to put our players in a better situation to take care of themselves, their families and to protect the future of this game.”

Introduced during these collective bargaining agreement discussions, the 17-game schedule has become one of the central components of the negotiations. It appears the talks are progressing, and Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk reports (on Twitter) the revised schedule is likely to be part of the next CBA.

However, were the 17-game schedule not included in these discussions, Florio adds it is believed the league and the NFLPA would have a deal by now (Twitter link). It could then be inferred the parties have agreed to a revenue split figure, which would be a critical barrier cleared.

The owners, who recently proposed a new revenue-split figure, are confident the extra game will be added to schedules. While the 17-game season would not necessarily become a reality in the CBA’s first year, it can be assumed that would be an early-2020s change.

The prospect of a 17-game season surfaced in late September, and we’ve steadily learned what this would mean for the league. Having used a 16-game schedule for 42 years, the NFL moved off its 18-game pursuit during these talks and is attempting to structure a 19-week season (two byes) with a Super Bowl that moves into late February. Each team’s extra game would come at neutral sites, both domestic and international, with the preseason being shortened.

A longer season obviously isn’t an especially popular proposition for the players, though the extra bye week and the NFL’s (known) concessions on marijuana and Roger Goodell‘s disciplinary powers would seemingly help. As would greater cap spikes generated by additional revenue. But it remains to be seen what effect an extra game would have on contracts.